Abortion Picture

[Maverick 791]

 

A picture began circulating in November. It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the U.S. paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.

 

The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by 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.

 

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

 

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 pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person" Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. Now see the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible....and hey, pass it on! The world needs to see this one!

 

Snopes would later prove the baby didn't reach his hand out, but the baby was born healthy.

 

It's a controversial topic no doubt, but I just don't get how you can look at pictures such as this one and still think you're not killing a human being.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Snopes would later prove the baby didn't reach his hand out, but the baby was born healthy.

So basically the point of the picture was a lie?

 

Thats good of you to be honest about it, but come on. It basically shows that at that point its not a human, but a future human that isn't developed to be anything like what we consider a human other than shape.

 

If this is so obvious to anti-abortion people they shouldn't have to lie to prove their point.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It is quite obvious and there is no need to lie about it. The picture is true to everything except for the baby reaching his hand out. It looks like that, he looks like a human being, he will, if left to himself, proceed to become a human being.

 

It is murder to kill the child, plain and simple, but we have so lost our way and become so much about what is convenient, that we would rather allow women to get rid of the "parasite" so that they don't have to carry it to term, because that would inconvenience their lives for nine months.

 

This is one issue that I feel so strongly about, it just makes me sick to think that people are allowed to kill these children just because they don't want them.

 

In the horrible case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, then a decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis as to whether the mother should carry the child to term or not. That should be up to the family to make that incredibly difficult decision.

 

All other cases, it is a life and should be protected as such.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Abortion is probably one of the biggest issues for me as well.

 

I know people talk about the cases of rape and incest...but how many abortions are a result of such instances?

 

If you don't want to have a baby...don't have sex...or use protection...because an innocent child shouldn't have to be killed because of your dumb ass decision.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I will say in a perfect world, no one would ever get an abortion, people would think their decisions on sex through 100% of the time, and always use protection. Sadly that will never be the case, and trying assuming that of people is a mistake. The phrase "the biggest enemy of improvement is perfection" applies. A lot of people feel that the reason crime has dropped so much since the 70s is because of abortion. Unwanted kids have neglected childhoods, which is a lot more likely to lead to crime. It sucks, but we are all better off for people having abortions.

 

Also, before abortion was legalized, they still happened. The only difference was that it was a lot less safe for the woman because it had to be done in hiding in less sterile environments.

 

And I'd hope no one actually thinks this, but gonna give a preemptive "fuck you, you're a terrible person" to anyone who wants to say that it was better then because the woman deserved the additional risks for getting an abortion.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

How did Snopes prove it to be false? Is the picture shopped or something?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

How did Snopes prove it to be false? Is the picture shopped or something?

 

I think it originally went viral as an anti-abortion picture. Snopes corrected that.

 

Also, this topic is awful.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[oochymp 2,393]

How did Snopes prove it to be false? Is the picture shopped or something?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

 

for some reason I can't copy/paste text from there, but basically it says the hand just fell out and the doctor had to tuck it back in

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Super toucht subject, but I will ask this question is when is it a life. Conception ? A heartbeat ? Birth ? That is the real question people have to answer as to whether or not they find it morally objectionable.

 

Also bear in mind this photo is meant to do exactly what it is and whip up a frenzy of anti-abortion people. I am no mod or anything, but I suggest people exercise caution about reply's and discussion.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

 

for some reason I can't copy/paste text from there, but basically it says the hand just fell out and the doctor had to tuck it back in

 

Oh okay. The mother and baby were under anesthesia, so that all kinda makes sense.. haha. Thanks for the link.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Super toucht subject, but I will ask this question is when is it a life. Conception ? A heartbeat ? Birth ? That is the real question people have to answer as to whether or not they find it morally objectionable.

 

Also bear in mind this photo is meant to do exactly what it is and whip up a frenzy of anti-abortion people. I am no mod or anything, but I suggest people exercise caution about reply's and discussion.

 

Agreed. This is probably the nastiest contemporary "political" debate, and one I will not be taking part of. It just gets people riled up and no one's minds are changed.

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Viva la abortion.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I will say in a perfect world, no one would ever get an abortion, people would think their decisions on sex through 100% of the time, and always use protection. Sadly that will never be the case, and trying assuming that of people is a mistake. The phrase "the biggest enemy of improvement is perfection" applies. A lot of people feel that the reason crime has dropped so much since the 70s is because of abortion. Unwanted kids have neglected childhoods, which is a lot more likely to lead to crime. It sucks, but we are all better off for people having abortions.

 

Also, before abortion was legalized, they still happened. The only difference was that it was a lot less safe for the woman because it had to be done in hiding in less sterile environments.

 

And I'd hope no one actually thinks this, but gonna give a preemptive "fuck you, you're a terrible person" to anyone who wants to say that it was better then because the woman deserved the additional risks for getting an abortion.

 

Hell no we are not. How do you know what those kids might have grown up to discover? One of them might've been the guy that cured a type of cancer or something else equally awesome. That statement is so callous, just wow. We are better off for allowing people to murder their children because they don't want them? Would we not also be better off, then, for those mothers who were unable to get an abortion, to be allowed to kill their infant children? After all, they don't want them, and since unwanted children are more likely to commit crimes, we should just let parents kill all unwanted children.

 

Just because abortions went on prior to abortion being legalized is an insanely dumb argument to allow it to be legal. The same is true of thievery or murder or any abhorrent practice. It doesn't mean you allow it to go on.

 

As far as your "a lot of people feel" argument, let me lay out a scenario that shows how irrelevant it is:

 

Hypothetical scenario: A government uses capital punishment on anyone who commits any crime. The crime rate in that sector plummets. A lot of people feel that the reason the crime rate plummeted was because of the state's strict enforcement of the death penalty for any crime.

 

Does this make the state's giving the death penalty to anyone for any crime a justifiable decision? Of course not. Is it likely true that there is a correlation? Yes, but that does not excuse killing someone for stealing six bucks worth of goods from the local candy store.

 

There are far more consequences than just the death of the child when you allow people to kill their children.

 

Your argument also completely assumes that the mother has two options: Abortion, or raising the kid herself. There is a third alternative: adoption.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I just wish the morons who got into situations that called for abortion as a solution were just smarter to begin with. Now, obviously I am not calling somebody who got raped a moron. Spare me the drama.

 

But how much less of an issue would this be if people just used their brains a little more.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Super toucht subject, but I will ask this question is when is it a life. Conception ? A heartbeat ? Birth ? That is the real question people have to answer as to whether or not they find it morally objectionable.

 

Also bear in mind this photo is meant to do exactly what it is and whip up a frenzy of anti-abortion people. I am no mod or anything, but I suggest people exercise caution about reply's and discussion.

 

Does it matter if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you leave the child alone it will undoubtedly become alive? At the very least, the burden of proof should most certainly be on the people who wish to allow abortions- if you cannot prove that it isn't alive prior to a certain point, we would be far better off erring on the side of caution.

 

That is not the only thing the picture is designed to do, but there is a place for being morally outraged over something, and this is one of those times.

[Shotgun 442]

The topic of abortion leaves me conflicted, one part of me feels sorry for the would-be-humans and leaves me thankful I'm not them, another part of me likes the fact it reduces crime rates, keeps adoption agencies a little less burdened, and prevents there being yet another person from having what will most likely be a pretty shitty life.

 

I am curious about one thing though. Why do so many anti-abortion people concede that in cases of rape or incest it's okay to have an abortion? Is it not still a human being? Is it the babies fault that it was created through rape or incest? It's a burden on the mother and family of the victim, but either way the reasons are the same: They don't want to keep a baby they don't want. The only difference is people feel sorry for the victims and contempt for the rest. The anti-abortion belief is nevertheless inconsistent.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The topic of abortion leaves me conflicted, one part of me feels sorry for the would-be-humans and leaves me thankful I'm not them, another part of me likes the fact it reduces crime rates, keeps adoption agencies a little less burdened, and prevents there being yet another person from having what will most likely be a pretty shitty life.

 

I am curious about one thing though. Why do so many anti-abortion people concede that in cases of rape or incest it's okay to have an abortion? Is it not still a human being? Is it the babies fault that it was created through rape or incest? It's a burden on the mother and family of the victim, but either way the reasons are the same: They don't want to keep a baby they don't want. The only difference is people feel sorry for the victims and contempt for the rest. The anti-abortion belief is nevertheless inconsistent.

 

The anti-abortion position is in no way inconsistent. All three exceptions come back to the life of the mother.

 

I personally do feel that it is still a life, and that it should be taken to term except in extreme cases, (like where the mother is a minor). I am simply not willing to make it a law and tell everyone else that they also *must* do this.

 

The issue is the amount of emotional trauma that it places on the woman who, in this case, was not in any way responsible for what happened. Forcing them to take the child of a rapist to term is not something I am willing to do. Not to mention the untold emotional side effects on the woman.

 

They are not in any way responsible for what happened, and though I would counsel someone to take the child to term, (again, except in those extreme cases), I believe that should be left up to the family. You are weighing one life against what would happen to another life, who is not, in any way, responsible for the first life.

 

It's kinda like forcing the victim of a horrible crime to go through another crime in order to save the life of a stranger. Will the second crime kill them? No, but it's not their responsibility to do so.

 

If the pregnancy was not a result of rape, then it is their responsibility to care for the child. There is a major difference here.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Does it matter if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you leave the child alone it will undoubtedly become alive? At the very least, the burden of proof should most certainly be on the people who wish to allow abortions- if you cannot prove that it isn't alive prior to a certain point, we would be far better off erring on the side of caution.

 

That is not the only thing the picture is designed to do, but there is a place for being morally outraged over something, and this is one of those times.

 

In my own opinion, I think it is a heartbeat. I think once the heartbeat is there, there should be zero wiggle room. You can no longer have an abortion after that. Yes it will become alive in all probability but it is not, you can not start telling people how to live their lives to adhere to future circumstances. Also you can not kill something that is not alive which is why I draw the line at a heartbeat. Before that is a lump of cells with no particular shape or strong human characteristics. After the heartbeat though everything changes.

 

This subject is muddled with so much grey in scientific terms the only line they can really come up with concerning life is the heartbeat so that is where I stand.

 

And yes by all means be morally outraged but dont be fooled. That was the main objective of this photo, and I was just reminding people to bear that in mind and respond accordingly no matter what side they were on.

[Thanatos 2,847]

In my own opinion, I think it is a heartbeat. I think once the heartbeat is there, there should be zero wiggle room. You can no longer have an abortion after that. Yes it will become alive in all probability but it is not, you can not start telling people how to live their lives to adhere to future circumstances. Also you can not kill something that is not alive which is why I draw the line at a heartbeat. Before that is a lump of cells with no particular shape or strong human characteristics. After the heartbeat though everything changes.

 

This subject is muddled with so much grey in scientific terms the only line they can really come up with concerning life is the heartbeat so that is where I stand.

 

And yes by all means be morally outraged but dont be fooled. That was the main objective of this photo, and I was just reminding people to bear that in mind and respond accordingly no matter what side they were on.

 

The issue I have is what about the day before a heartbeat? Is it not a human then and then magically becomes one when it has a heartbeat? Unless we *know* that the child is not alive, then we should err on the side of caution.

 

According to wikipedia, the heart begins beating 22-28 days after conception. That would eliminate a lot of abortions.

[Shotgun 442]

The anti-abortion position is in no way inconsistent. All three exceptions come back to the life of the mother.

 

I personally do feel that it is still a life, and that it should be taken to term except in extreme cases, (like where the mother is a minor). I am simply not willing to make it a law and tell everyone else that they also *must* do this.

 

The issue is the amount of emotional trauma that it places on the woman who, in this case, was not in any way responsible for what happened. Forcing them to take the child of a rapist to term is not something I am willing to do. Not to mention the untold emotional side effects on the woman.

 

They are not in any way responsible for what happened, and though I would counsel someone to take the child to term, (again, except in those extreme cases), I believe that should be left up to the family. You are weighing one life against what would happen to another life, who is not, in any way, responsible for the first life.

 

It's kinda like forcing the victim of a horrible crime to go through another crime in order to save the life of a stranger. Will the second crime kill them? No, but it's not their responsibility to do so.

 

If the pregnancy was not a result of rape, then it is their responsibility to care for the child. There is a major difference here.

 

 

So you're putting the life of the mother ahead of the possible child in terms of rape and incest but not otherwise? Having a child is life altering in either case. Yes, in one it's emotionally damaging, but what does that have to do with the human child? Anti-abortionists say abortion is murder of an innocent. Being the product of a rape does not make the baby any less innocent. Therefore a position is being taken that it's okay to murder an innocent human being so long as it reduces the emotional damage of a rape victim. How is that not being inconsistent with a belief?

Edited November 13, 2012 by Shotgun

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The issue I have is what about the day before a heartbeat? Is it not a human then and then magically becomes one when it has a heartbeat? Unless we *know* that the child is not alive, then we should err on the side of caution.

 

According to wikipedia, the heart begins beating 22-28 days after conception. That would eliminate a lot of abortions.

 

Then for me it is simple. The day before a heartbeat then yes it is ok, but if day 22 rolls around and you can detect a heartbeat then you no longer have the option.

 

And by simple I mean clear cut obviously this is no easy decision, but I have to draw a line somewhere and I have chosen and I will stand by it.

[Maverick 791]

blots, it was one of those facebook pages that posted it so go figure lol. The picture was what touched me emotionally hence the reason I posted. I completely disagre with you that the world is a better place with abortion. "The world isnt perfect." So we just kill a human being because some dumbass teenagers didnt think before they fucked? Nah thats bullshit. Not a justified reason for murder in my book. As Thanatos and JD said, yes situations such as rape are delicate and I dont have the perfect solution.

 

People need to take responsibility for their actions. Society paints the image that sleeping around is all fun and games. Thats all fine and dandy but regardless of my beliefs in no sex before marriage, people better be prepared when they fuck up. Murder shouldnt be easier just because you can't see the life youre taking away.

 

And Phail I'm sorry you think this thread is awful.

[OSUViking 505]

I am curious about one thing though. Why do so many anti-abortion people concede that in cases of rape or incest it's okay to have an abortion? Is it not still a human being? Is it the babies fault that it was created through rape or incest? It's a burden on the mother and family of the victim, but either way the reasons are the same: They don't want to keep a baby they don't want. The only difference is people feel sorry for the victims and contempt for the rest. The anti-abortion belief is nevertheless inconsistent.

 

The pro-life argument in the United States is generally inconsistent. I'm not speaking against anyone here, but a lot of "pro-lifers" are also pro-war and pro-death sentence.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

The pro-life argument in the United States is generally inconsistent. I'm not speaking against anyone here, but a lot of "pro-lifers" are also pro-war and pro-death sentence.

Fair point.

 

I will say that I am a pro-lifer. I just think it's rather wreckless to kill an innocent newborn child in any instance, rape, incest, casual sex. I'm just saying a baby should NOT have to die for someone's else dumbass or unfortunate decision.

 

I will say this...

 

The death sentence and abortion are kinda tough to compare to each other. What has a child that hasn't even left the womb done to deserve death? Meanwhile, I find those that don't want to kill the child molesters, rapists, and murderers as those that really don't understand justice.

 

Those people are criminals and have had plenty of time to discern from right and wrong,for them to commit crimes that either take lives or ruin lives shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

Just ATL's opinion.

[NaTaS+ 958]

I'm pro-choice and I hate seeing images like that.