NationStates Jolt Archive

Donation is the complete loss of those organs. Your use is being denied, and another’s use of them granted, permanently. A fundamental difference between them being used to support progeny for a specific time period, that does not deny one the use of her organs.
what about blood donation then. bone marrow donation?

hell, they can now do operations to take half a liver and give it to someone else, both people involved will eventually grow the other half of the liver, but for a time, the donor is left with part of a liver.

you can't even force someone to donate blood for someone else, let alone go through invasive surgery to save someone else's life. it's silly that this doesn't apply for a woman lending her uterus for potential offspring.

If you are sitting in a bed with half your blood and are in need of a transfusion, and the doctors ask me (or I volunteer) to do an immediate donation and halfway through them removing the blood, I balk and yank the needle from my arm (or demand that they do it) even if you die as a direct result of that action I am under no legal compuction or risk of penalty.

This is the right of personhood, I am never under an obligation (legally, morally is a whole 'nother can of worms) to forfeit my own rights to another. Not even, if I caused the injury that caused the requirement for that relinquishment.

Actually, with respect to legality: In this scenario you have entered into an undertaking of an affirmative action.Once you assume the duty and responsibility, as outlined in this case of donating blood under these circumstances, you can not abandone the person whose reliance on your promise to aid is detrimental. Failure to do so would be negligent conduct.

Accountable, yes. Heald responsible, certainly. Punished, why not. Legally Obligated, an emphatic No!

This isn't the dark ages. We do not except the 'eye for an eye' legal methodology. The world does not divide into cases of black and white. Beyond the obvious capacity for error on the part of the court, the constant moral and legal quagmire that would result from courts having to decide if someone was "wrong enough" to require from them an organ or tissue donation as part of their punishment.

Could you imagine the horror that would result the first time someone had to give their eyes or liver, only to be later determined innocent? Justified morally or not, we are not capable of justifying the situation legally.

I agree with you. That's why I was not definitive, and said it could be justified. Then I outlined the difference between donation and pregnancy.

If you are suggesting that the 'right to life' or the 'right of personhood' should be applied to zygotes from the moment of conception onward then you are imposing rights that are currently unrecognized. Second, you are also opening the door for a slew of legal issues in regards to negligence of the mother, as the vast majority of zygotes at this stage die on their own, and many die as a direct result of the actions of the mother before she knows she is pregnant.

Women can be pregnant any day of the year. If single celled embryos have the same 'right to life' that a currently recognized person does (from the point of birth) then any actions she takes at any point in time could result in a manslaughter charge due to her own negligence. Heck, not taking folic acid on a regular basis would be criminal negligence by those standards.

I do not believe in a right to life, that implies the right not die. I am emphasizing a duty of care with respect to the fetus to allow it to continue its life cycle.

My quagmire, at present, is whether I should consider the life cycle to be: all those stages of development of an organism at which the qualifications for life can apply. Grave and you have illustrated that I should not, and that since we are more complex, the life cycle should only be considered as existing when it has developed a neural system. I am debating this with myself, and more reasons as to why I should, and not consider this an arbitrarily point of of development with respect to the life cycle would be greatly appreciated.

I can, with consistency, disagree that my stance does not consider a toe to be alive, as its genetic activities are not such that the toe is growing and developing at a point on its life cycle, as it does not have one. The to is not growing and developing with a potential to someday be capable of begeting another toe.

Now, I am aware of the implications my stance would have on the law. And understand that there is a period of time between copulation, and fertilization, and when the life cycle of a new being begins, which the mother is not aware of. Therefore, there is a period of time after the act of intercourse which a mother does not know, or have reason to know a new life has begun. It is foreseeable that she may become pregnant during this time, but still preventable via the use of birth control or the morning after pill or other actions which can be taken to ellimate the possibility of pregnancy (there is a chemical available that immediately forces female animals to cycle, will have to get back to you with the name). This would mean there is no cause of action, as the act was committed within a time that pregnancy is indeterminable. So, if a woman does not desire pregnancy after copulation, there is a means to prevent it before a new life cycle has begun.

However, if precautions are not taken, and the female becomes pregnant, then there would be a duty to care for that growing and developing organism which both parents share. Should the mother or father breach that duty, criminal and civil actions could then be brought by the state or other parent for negligence represnting the interest of the developing organism. The same way the court adjudicates against a person for terminating a being on behalf of society, and its parent or owner (you kick my dog, injuring it, or killing it).

Abortion would still be allowed so long as the pregnancy presents a known substantial risk to the life of the mother.

Grave & Pithica: This has been prepared quickly and without review or deep thought. Please critique liberally.

The afforementioned criminal and civil litigation, depending on the circumstances, could be considered either intentional or negligent.

Drinking while pregnant that causes deformalities during pregnancy, could be negligent or intentional, depending on circumstances and whether the other parent files charges. So could assault and battery or the infliction of emotional distress by the father if the mother brings charges.

Thank you!

An organ being used for what it is intended is not a "donation".

Surprisingly, had not looked at it from that viewpont.

How can a womans sovereignty be violated if it is a volitional act of the body? Unlike cancer it is not a mutation of cells, it is the body conducting natural processes. The body creates necessary elements, and the organ is not being usurped, but serving its purpose.

Just questions, not a stance.

Why does it matter what a uterus is "intended" for? Why does it matter that the use is not permanent?

The fact remains that you are forcing a woman to let another organism, whose status as a human or not is debatable, leech off nutrients from her body.

Surprisingly, had not looked at it from that viewpont.

How can a womans sovereignty be violated if it is a volitional act of the body? Unlike cancer it is not a mutation of cells, it is the body conducting natural processes. The body creates necessary elements, and the organ is not being usurped, but serving its purpose.

Just questions, not a stance.

'Intended'? But what? Nature/biology should not be personified. The only one who can 'intend' something is the person whose organs they are.

If I don't plan on becoming pregnant, and I do, my womb is NOT being used for what I intend it be used for.

Cancers are a natural process, like any other disease. Again, 'serving a purpose' only assumes that we should never try to rise above pushing out children. My womb's 'purpose' is not to house a child, because I do not want children.

Okay, some quick thoughts on the responses:

The fact remains that you are forcing a woman to let another organism, whose status as a human or not is debatable, leech off nutrients from her body.

Gentics dictate the classification of an organism, its growth and development. That it is human is not debatable. Personhood is debatable (well actually does not exist) for zygotes, fetuses, and infants.

That it is a leach is also debatable. Your body creates an environment to support it. As far as your body is concerned, it is conducting an involuntary act-ie your conscious is not designed to play a role in its occurence.



'Intended'? But what? Nature/biology should not be personified. The only one who can 'intend' something is the person whose organs they are.

If I don't plan on becoming pregnant, and I do, my womb is NOT being used for what I intend it be used for.

Cancers are a natural process, like any other disease. Again, 'serving a purpose' only assumes that we should never try to rise above pushing out children. My womb's 'purpose' is not to house a child, because I do not want children.

We are natural biological beings. And are personified. Consciousness is not a seperate entity that owns the body. It is a manifestation of Neurobiochemical activity.

We are using intent in two different ways. You are speaking of intent as desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that an event will occur, I meant in terms of purpose. That miscommunication is my fault. In either event, a human being is not the only being capable of intent.

The function, or purpose of an organ does not change because you will it.
Especially if that organ is involuntary. And no, that an organ has a purpose does not assume that women should never try to rise above pushing out children, nor does imply that I feel that is the purpose, or ever was the purpose, of women. I am unsure of how you came to that conclusion.

Cancer is a mutation. Attributed primarily to outside envrionmental factors on the cell. Chemicals released from stress, and chemicals at toxic levels. I say primarily, not that it is true for all. However, cancer is a deformality without benefit. Also, cancer is involuntary, you have no choice, and is removed because it is a health threat with known fatal certainty (if it is benign it is not always removed), pregnancy is not always a known substantial risk to survival (in cases that it is, that abortion is justified is non-dbatable in my opinion.

I have to sleep.

Promise to respond to any comments tomorrow.

Grave and Pith, I have posted some remarks for your review on this and the previous page.

Thank you all,

Goodnight

Okay, some quick thoughts on the responses:

Gentics dictate the classification of an organism, its growth and development. That it is human is not debatable. Personhood is debatable (well actually does not exist) for zygotes, fetuses, and infants.

That it is a leach is also debatable. Your body creates an environment to support it. As far as your body is concerned, it is conducting an involuntary act-ie your conscious is not designed to play a role in its occurence.

It is leaching nutrients from the mother, so I don't see how it being a leach can possibly be debatable. Again, it is either a part of the mother (not a separate organism), in which case she can have it removed at will, or it is a separate being, in which case she can choose not to let it use her body against her will.

We are natural biological beings. And are personified. Consciousness is not a seperate entity that owns the body. It is a manifestation of Neurobiochemical activity.

We are using intent in two different ways. You are speaking of intent as desire or knowledge with substantial certainty that an event will occur, I meant in terms of purpose. That miscommunication is my fault. In either event, a human being is not the only being capable of intent.

No, but the ever nebulous 'nature' is NOT capable of 'intent'. Intent implies a conscious choice, and nature is not capable of that under any terms (which we obviously agree with). I do take issue with the whole 'purpose' thing also, but I'll leave that for a later point.

The function, or purpose of an organ does not change because you will it.
Especially if that organ is involuntary. And no, that an organ has a purpose does not assume that women should never try to rise above pushing out children, nor does imply that I feel that is the purpose, or ever was the purpose, of women. I am unsure of how you came to that conclusion.

Well, if you believe that the womb is soley there to support a child, and that thus a woman should be used to use it to incubate a child she does not want (simply because the organ is there to enable her to do so IF SHE CHOOSES TO), then, I'm afraid you are suggesting women should only concentrate on having children. If the purpose of the womb is to incubate children, and choice has nothing to do with the issue, the logical extension is that woman should be pregnant all the time. Since otherwise the organ is not being used according to it's purpose.

Also, purposes do change according to views. One person may see a car soley as something to be used to get from point A to point B, where another person may see their purpose as a status symbol. One person may see the purpose of a stamp as something used to pay for postage, wheras another person may see it's purpose as being a collectable. Some people may see the appendix, or wisdom teeth, as having a valid purpose in the body. Others may not.
Not everything has one sole purpose. And not everything must be used soley according to one purpose.

Cancer is a mutation. Attributed primarily to outside envrionmental factors on the cell. Chemicals released from stress, and chemicals at toxic levels. I say primarily, not that it is true for all. However, cancer is a deformality without benefit. Also, cancer is involuntary, you have no choice, and is removed because it is a health threat with known fatal certainty (if it is benign it is not always removed), pregnancy is not always a known substantial risk to survival (in cases that it is, that abortion is justified is non-dbatable in my opinion.

Cancer is nonetheless natural. It occurs because of natural influences (unless you will claim that radiation is unnatural, or that some chemicals found in nature are unnatural). Some people view pregnancy as being completely without benefit. Pregnancy is involuntary (unless you blame people who get x-rays, or drinking out of aluminium cans for giving themselves cancer).

Giving birth is a health threat. It can cripple or kill a woman, and has the associated risks of post natal depression. If a woman wants to have something removed to avoid health risks, she should have that right.

Saying that if a pregnancy is a known substantial risk won't be sufficient, since serious post-natal depression (often leading to suicide or murder-suicides) cannot be predicted accurately enough. Personally, I consider refusing abortions to women to be a risk factor involved. If she cannot handle the idea of giving birth, she most likely will not deal well with being forced to against her will.

Well, if you believe that the womb is soley there to support a child, and that thus a woman should be used to use it to incubate a child she does not want (simply because the organ is there to enable her to do so IF SHE CHOOSES TO), then, I'm afraid you are suggesting women should only concentrate on having children. If the purpose of the womb is to incubate children, and choice has nothing to do with the issue, the logical extension is that woman should be pregnant all the time. Since otherwise the organ is not being used according to it's purpose.

I am not making any such suggestions, your premises do not support your conlusions. In no way does what you say lead to the conclusions that "women should only concentrate on having children," or "that women should be pregnant all of the time." In no way have I said that since the organ exists, the sole purpose of a woman is to have children. You are, perhaps, confusing what I say with a false presumption that I am a male chauvanist. I am not.

Also, purposes do change according to views. One person may see a car soley as something to be used to get from point A to point B, where another person may see their purpose as a status symbol. One person may see the purpose of a stamp as something used to pay for postage, wheras another person may see it's purpose as being a collectable. Some people may see the appendix, or wisdom teeth, as having a valid purpose in the body. Others may not.
Not everything has one sole purpose. And not everything must be used soley according to one purpose.

You are illustrating different uses for objects other than what they are made for. Given some cars are made to be collectibles as are stamps. But, again that is what they are made to be. The appendix and wisdom teeth have no alternate use and can be removed. So, to, if a woman never wants the organ to be used, can the uterus.

Assuming cars and stamps are a valid analogy, what else could you see a uterus being used for? And how can the uterus be manipulated for that purpose?

(I am up studying, but am actually going to bed soon, this helps keep me awake and focused)

It is leaching nutrients from the mother, so I don't see how it being a leach can possibly be debatable. Again, it is either a part of the mother (not a separate organism), in which case she can have it removed at will, or it is a separate being, in which case she can choose not to let it use her body against her will.

Now, is it honestly leaching nutrients. Or, does the mother supply nutrients. If a mother is malnutritioned, her body self terminates the pregnancy. Which lends itself to an inference of supply based on mothers intake of nutrients, not what the fetus demands.

Grave, a find on Response to stimuli:

Feeding the baby: The Role of the Placenta During Pregnancy, Yen-Ru Elinor Lin, CalTech, Science Writing Journal
Section: Implantation – First step of Placentation
The placenta begins to form when the blastocyst implants into the uterus. Halfway through the menstrual cycle, women’s hormones stimulate the endometrium, the inside layer of the uterus, to become full of blood vessels. The endometrium at this stage is called decidua. About six days after ovulation, the blastocyst starts sinking into the decidua, initiating implantation. The outer layer of the blastocyst, the trophoblast, tests whether the endometrium is ready for implantation. The receptivity of the endometrium to implantation depends on the proper levels of ovarian hormones in the blood. If the endometrium is ready early, the blastocyst implants high in the uterus; otherwise, it detaches and floats to a lower level (Marieb, 1998). Once the blastocyst has found the optimal site for implantation, the trophoblast cells proliferate and secrete digestive enzymes to eat into the decidua. The digested decidua passes across the trophoblast wall and serves to nourish the growing embryo (Harrison, 1963). By the 10th day, the blastocyst should sink completely below the surface of decidua, and the decidua is now classified into three portions. The side lying in contact with the blastocyst at the site of implantation is the decidua basalis; the decidua lining over the surface of the implanted blastocyst is the decidua capsularis; the remainder of the decidua lining the inside of the uterus is the decidua vera (Fig. 3). References: Beard R. W. et al. 1979. Pregnancy Metabolism, Diabetes and the Fetus. New York: Excerpta Medica. 326p.
Bergsma D. 1965. Symposium on the Placenta. New York:
The National Foundation. 95p.
Birdsey T. 2000 Nov. Implantation and the Human Placenta.
<http://www.shef.ac.uk/~smtw/2000/og/og1101a.htm> Accessed 2002 Nov 29.
Brookes M. and Zietman A. 1998. Clinical Embryology. New York: CRC press. 342p.
EI-Mowafi D. 1999 Sep 16. The Placenta.
<http://matweb.hcuge.ch/El_Mowafi/Placenta.htm> Accessed 2002 Nov 29.
Eisenberg A., Murkoff H., and Hathaway S. 1996. What to Expect When
You’re Expecting. New York: Workman Publishing. 480p.
Finch University of Health Science.
Placenta Formation. <http://www.finchcms.edu/cms/anatomy/embryology/
Course%20Contents/Placenta/Placenta%20Text.html> Accessed 2002 Nov 29.
Gates W. 1980. Newborn Beauty. New York: The Viking Press. 354p.
Gilbert S. 1997 Apr 25. Maternal-Fetal Interactions.
<http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/gast3.html> Accessed 2002 Nov 29.
Grossman F. K., Eichler L. S., and Winickoff S. A. 1980.
Pregnancy, Birth, and Parenthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 306p.
Hamilton W. J., Boyd J. D., and Mossman H. W. 1962.
Human Embryology. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company. 493p.
Harrison R. G. 1963. A Textbook of Human Embryology.
Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company. 248p.
Marieb E. N. 1998. Human Anatomy and Physiology.
California: Benjamin/Cummings Science Publishing Company,
Inc. 1030-1107p.
Martin L. and Reeder S. 1991. Essentials of Maternity Nursing.
Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company. 820p.
O’Rahilly R. and Muller F. 1987. Developmental Stages
in Human Embryos. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication. 306p.

Pith,

Building on previous posts with respect to life cycle and legality: not implementing methods to prevent fertilization after intercourse or implantation (woman) or making such recomendations (male) constitutes affirmative acts. (Is internally consistent based on grey area discussed above.)

Cancers are a natural process, like any other disease. Again, 'serving a purpose' only assumes that we should never try to rise above pushing out children. My womb's 'purpose' is not to house a child, because I do not want children.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Your womb's purpose, regardless of your intentions, has only that one purpose, and that is to have an embryo/fetus/baby/what have you "incubated" inside it; by no means does it mean that all you have to do with it is pump out babies. The purpose of your brain is to allow you to think and be intelligent, but since you obviously don't intend to use it for that why not have it removed? Also, my bladder's 'purpose' is not to hold urine, because I do not want urine.

It is leaching nutrients from the mother, so I don't see how it being a leach can possibly be debatable. Again, it is either a part of the mother (not a separate organism), in which case she can have it removed at will, or it is a separate being, in which case she can choose not to let it use her body against her will.

If this is what you believe, then why not have your uterus and/or ovaries totally removed? Then you don't have to worry about killing something because you didn't want to use some kind of contraceptive.

Well, if you believe that the womb is soley there to support a child, and that thus a woman should be used to use it to incubate a child she does not want (simply because the organ is there to enable her to do so IF SHE CHOOSES TO), then, I'm afraid you are suggesting women should only concentrate on having children. If the purpose of the womb is to incubate children, and choice has nothing to do with the issue, the logical extension is that woman should be pregnant all the time. Since otherwise the organ is not being used according to it's purpose.

If you believe that an organ has to be used all the time in order to serve it's purpose, then you are dumber than I thought. As I said before, your brain must not be serving it's purpose, because you're obviously not using it all the time. Really, think about it. If all of your organs were constantly being used for their purpose, like, say, your adrenal glands, think about what people would be like.

Giving birth is a health threat. It can cripple or kill a woman, and has the associated risks of post natal depression.

Having sex is a health threat. Do you know for certain that your partner is clean?

If a woman wants to have something removed to avoid health risks, she should have that right.

Absolutely, she should have that right, but only if it's her body. Let her remove her uterus or ovaries if she does not want to have babies.

If she cannot handle the idea of giving birth, she most likely will not deal well with being forced to against her will.

If she cannot handle the idea of giving birth, she should not engage in activities that could result in having to give birth.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.[etc...]That's an aggressive attitude you have there. Amazing how many times you used 'dumb' or 'dumber'. You may disagree, and that's not exactly strong language, but your debating skills don't exactly shine through...

Of the two things you said that did not involve insults, however:

Absolutely, she should have that right, but only if it's her body. Let her remove her uterus or ovaries if she does not want to have babies.Major surgery? Possibly (propbably?) a lifetime on HRT? And while she seems pretty set in her ways at present, and fair enough, such a procedure would effectively prevent the possibility of changing her mind. You should have at least advocated a reversible 'tube-tying', even though that isn't minor surgery and nor is it quite 100% guaranteed (fraction of a percent from that, I believe, which leads me to the next point quite neatly).


If she cannot handle the idea of giving birth, she should not engage in activities that could result in having to give birth.While it may be your religion (or personal moral code, and I do not mean to denigrate anyones beliefs) that sex should be associated purely with procreation, I don't think we can possibly deny anyone the right to engage in safe, protected sex. That might involve one or more of condom/femidom, withdrawl, calendar, pill (monthly/morning after), cap, UID, both male and female tube-tying, and obviously some of these (calendar and withdrawl especially) are hopelessly bad for pregancy prevention (with most of the others not doing a thing for STDs either, but that's beyond scope), but if a reasonably informed decision has been made to have sex in a manner that is highly certain to not result in pregnancy (utilising multiple reliable methods of contraception) and yet it happens, then I cannot see why an early-term decision cannot be taken to mitigate the situation, and all the "you shouldn't have been having sex" preaching isn't helpful in such circumstances...

Surprisingly, had not looked at it from that viewpont.

How can a womans sovereignty be violated if it is a volitional act of the body? Unlike cancer it is not a mutation of cells, it is the body conducting natural processes. The body creates necessary elements, and the organ is not being usurped, but serving its purpose.
Exactly. And that makes all the "donation", "usurp" and "parasite" buzz-words nothing more than emotive manipulation on the part of debaters.

Why does it matter what a uterus is "intended" for? Why does it matter that the use is not permanent?

The fact remains that you are forcing a woman to let another organism, whose status as a human or not is debatable, leech off nutrients from her body.
Oh, one more emotive buzz-word: "leech".

Crikey this is heated debate! my personal view is that if the child to be would have a difficult life - i.e the mother is not ready/doesn't have the stability/money etc to raise a child then that child will not have the best upbringing, mostly because the mother will not have "wanted" the child. it is a woman's free will to choose whether she should have a child. it's not as easy as, "o here's a litle baby, this is gonna be easy!" having said that, there are very few excuses (rape being one) for getting pregnant in the first place, WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM! mind you, if you listen to dubya, you must abstain and all contraception is wrong. excuse me while i drag myself back from the 1500s. GET REAL! sex is human, god is nothing to do with it!

Exactly. And that makes all the "donation", "usurp" and "parasite" buzz-words nothing more than emotive manipulation on the part of debaters.I don't think any of us pro-choicers are entirely comfortable with them taken as literally as all that, but we're battling against people who use "child" and "baby" in an over-emotive manner when describing barely-differentiated groups of cells, ascribe unrealisticly human qualities (such as feelings) to them. And let us not forget the word "murder" continually being bandied around, and worse.

I would never group you in with such people, but the field of play is littered with emotive manipulations and headway against such arguments is difficult without employing a similar minefield for the opposition. It is very difficult to not descend to such a level and counter-argue with "parasite". We know that using "parasite" is at best only a partially correct term, but we seem to be debating with those who think "murder" is the correct term and yet are equally (if not more) wrong.

Oh, one more emotive buzz-word: "leech".Maybe, but isn't it the interaction between foetal and maternal hormones that prompts massive calcium loss from the mother's bones? While being aided by the mother's systems, it is the basic biology of the developing child that is causing the loss. Not as direct as locking onto a bone and sucking, but the same effect. (I refer you to my previous message regarding my use of the term.)

i think that pro-choice is a play on words. the fact is, is that today in our society it means that an individual supports killing an innocent human being. the fetus has no choice on the matter. the mother had the choice to have sex and get pregnant, and should have to pay the consequences, not kill another innocent life. i see "pro-choice" as just a code today in society for someone's lack of character and inability to handle the natural consequences of their actions. of course there is a time and place for an abortion to occur- if the birth will kill the mother, or if the mother was raped or incest occured. but to kill a baby because you screwed up is wrong.

Actually, with respect to legality: In this scenario you have entered into an undertaking of an affirmative action.Once you assume the duty and responsibility, as outlined in this case of donating blood under these circumstances, you can not abandone the person whose reliance on your promise to aid is detrimental. Failure to do so would be negligent conduct.

I need to double-check, but I believe you are incorrect here in regards to their legality. I doubt there is a hard and fast rule for it, but I know that people have refused to save the life of another because of a real or percieved danger to themselves and had negligence cases thrown out of court after charges were filed by the family. Heck, stuff like that happens in battle all the time. ("I'll cover you" "oh crap") A phobia of needles would count as an example in this case.

I do not believe in a right to life, that implies the right not die. I am emphasizing a duty of care with respect to the fetus to allow it to continue its life cycle.

Personally, rather than abortion, I would prefer a system that removed and stored the embryos until such time as a willing mother was ready to care for them. That system isn't completely feasable at the moment. Until such time as it does, you are forcing a duty upon a woman (and only a pregnant one) that no other person has to bear. You are forcing her to risk her life and health for another. This is something that noone else is ever forced to do in this country. (at least until the next draft starts)

My quagmire, at present, is whether I should consider the life cycle to be: all those stages of development of an organism at which the qualifications for life can apply. Grave and you have illustrated that I should not, and that since we are more complex, the life cycle should only be considered as existing when it has developed a neural system. I am debating this with myself, and more reasons as to why I should, and not consider this an arbitrarily point of of development with respect to the life cycle would be greatly appreciated.

We have a saying in the south, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." It's a simple statement, but I believe it illustrates a valid point in this discussion. Potentiality doesn't equate to actuality. Every cell in a human's body is potentially a human being and certainly an embryo is. However we do not call an egg a chicken, we call it an egg. Why must some people insist on calling a fetus a human when it has not yet become so. (I realize this paragraph is arbitrary and doesn't really add a point to the debate. I am not trying to argue on your above paragraph. I am simply making a seperate comment that was brought forth from your above paragraph)

I can, with consistency, disagree that my stance does not consider a toe to be alive, as its genetic activities are not such that the toe is growing and developing at a point on its life cycle, as it does not have one. The to is not growing and developing with a potential to someday be capable of begeting another toe.

A severed toe, meets your own criteria if kept in the right environment (the way a zygote has to be). The criteria for life you listed earlier (on page 92), was that it have order (yes), growth and devlopment (yes), reproduce (no, unless you count cell division, which is all a zygote can do), energy utilization (yes), respond to environment (yes, chemically, in the same way that an early stage zygote does), evolutionary adaptation (no, but since every cell in a severed toe is potentially a full huma, then yes).

Now, I am aware of the implications my stance would have on the law. And understand that there is a period of time between copulation, and fertilization, and when the life cycle of a new being begins, which the mother is not aware of. Therefore, there is a period of time after the act of intercourse which a mother does not know, or have reason to know a new life has begun. It is foreseeable that she may become pregnant during this time, but still preventable via the use of birth control or the morning after pill or other actions which can be taken to ellimate the possibility of pregnancy (there is a chemical available that immediately forces female animals to cycle, will have to get back to you with the name). This would mean there is no cause of action, as the act was committed within a time that pregnancy is indeterminable. So, if a woman does not desire pregnancy after copulation, there is a means to prevent it before a new life cycle has begun.

Legally, since many birth control pills and definately the morning after pill both prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, both would be defined as murder if the zygote is given human rights from conception onward.

However, if precautions are not taken, and the female becomes pregnant, then there would be a duty to care for that growing and developing organism which both parents share. Should the mother or father breach that duty, criminal and civil actions could then be brought by the state or other parent for negligence represnting the interest of the developing organism. The same way the court adjudicates against a person for terminating a being on behalf of society, and its parent or owner (you kick my dog, injuring it, or killing it).

A woman is 'pregnant' from the moment of conception onward. Unless you are considering implantation of the zygote to be the point at which pregnancy begins. Since the law represents absolutes, and not greys, and ignorance is not considered a valid defense, if a woman is liable for duty of care from conception onward then she is potentially negligent for failing to remain constantly prepared for pregnancy. You could certainly write the laws in such a way as to give the courts a lot of leway here, but then you introduce a great potential for abuse on the part of both adamantly pro-life or adamantly pro-choice judges.

Abortion would still be allowed so long as the pregnancy presents a known substantial risk to the life of the mother.

All pregnancies present know substantial risk to the life of the mother. Even a mother and embryo deemed completely healthy. Beyond the 'life risks' are all the health risks that are a direct result of pregnancy or are exacerbated by it. Then one must realize that there are the social risks involved on top of that. Loss of job, residence, family, friends, a lover, etc. One cannot discount that these must play a part in defining how decisions are made in the law regarding abortion. And since, generally, individuals are much more capable of calculating risks to themselves than others are it falls on individuals to make and take responsibility for the results of their own decisions regarding this.

Grave & Pithica: This has been prepared quickly and without review or deep thought. Please critique liberally.

Done quite well. All of the above was said amicably. If it doesn't sound as such, assume I wrote it poorly and not that I was intending offense or insult. I lack the time currently to review as well.

bloody hell, is this thing still going?

Surprisingly, had not looked at it from that viewpont.

How can a womans sovereignty be violated if it is a volitional act of the body? Unlike cancer it is not a mutation of cells, it is the body conducting natural processes. The body creates necessary elements, and the organ is not being usurped, but serving its purpose.

Just questions, not a stance.

Becuase the use of that organ, even though it is doing what it is 'designed' to do and is not the same as a donation, always represents a tangible life and health risk to the mother. I need to find statistics on it, but I remember reading somewhere that they were roughly the same as those experienced by donors who gave away a single kidney.

Pith,

Building on previous posts with respect to life cycle and legality: not implementing methods to prevent fertilization after intercourse or implantation (woman) or making such recomendations (male) constitutes affirmative acts. (Is internally consistent based on grey area discussed above.)

Then a blastocyst does not meet your definition for human life even though it meets the criteria?

'Intended'? But what? Nature/biology should not be personified. The only one who can 'intend' something is the person whose organs they are.

If I don't plan on becoming pregnant, and I do, my womb is NOT being used for what I intend it be used for.

Cancers are a natural process, like any other disease. Again, 'serving a purpose' only assumes that we should never try to rise above pushing out children. My womb's 'purpose' is not to house a child, because I do not want children.
"Intended" by function, of course. And Nature, as a symbol of such. And the person whose organs they are, as a participant in Nature.

Rather you should say, if you don't become pregnant, your womb is not being used for what it is intended to be used for. Intent does not imply that it HAS to be used, any more than potentiality implies actuality.

On that note, if I become pregnant, my womb is NOT being "donated" to a separate life-form that will thrive in it. I do NOT become "host" to a parasite, nor a leech, nor a cancer that will eat away at me. Rather, a new part of me begins growing inside. I don't give a rat's ass about genetics, biology or DNA in this issue. I have no knowledge of such things, and I don't need them to answer these questions. If I choose to have an abortion, it is a part of me that will be cut out and lost. If I choose to carry the child to term, it will remain a part of me until that umbilical cord is cut and it can begin to be a person separate from me.

(I recognize that making it personal is not good debating technique, but I am responding in kind to style as it suits my point.)

i think that pro-choice is a play on words. the fact is, is that today in our society it means that an individual supports killing an innocent human being. the fetus has no choice on the matter. the mother had the choice to have sex and get pregnant, and should have to pay the consequences, not kill another innocent life. i see "pro-choice" as just a code today in society for someone's lack of character and inability to handle the natural consequences of their actions. of course there is a time and place for an abortion to occur- if the birth will kill the mother, or if the mother was raped or incest occured. but to kill a baby because you screwed up is wrong.

if Presdent Bush likes to call himself "Pro-Life" Why the War in Iraq? Why was he called the "Texecutioner" (executed most people in Texas history) contradictions? o interestring fact, he never spent more than half an hour on anything including death sentence pleas. (according to aides so it's not just a rumor)

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.


Yeah, and what about the millions of people who would exist? Where would we put these millions of kids, huh? How about the drain on natural resources? We have so many mouths to feed now--we can't even take care of the people who already exist on this earth. The last thing we need to do is increase the world's population.

And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Babies do not necessarily equal happiness! Babies are expensive and time-consuming and if you are a poor young girl you more than likely see a child as a burden, not a joy!
Yes, you should not have unprotected sex if you do not wish to get pregnant.
But accidents do happen. No female should be forced to have a child that she does not want.
It is not healthy for an innocent child to be born to a mother that does not want it!!

I don't think any of us pro-choicers are entirely comfortable with them taken as literally as all that, but we're battling against people who use "child" and "baby" in an over-emotive manner when describing barely-differentiated groups of cells, ascribe unrealisticly human qualities (such as feelings) to them. And let us not forget the word "murder" continually being bandied around, and worse.

I would never group you in with such people, but the field of play is littered with emotive manipulations and headway against such arguments is difficult without employing a similar minefield for the opposition. It is very difficult to not descend to such a level and counter-argue with "parasite". We know that using "parasite" is at best only a partially correct term, but we seem to be debating with those who think "murder" is the correct term and yet are equally (if not more) wrong.
I'm sorry, but I find words (and concepts) like "parasite" in reference to my reproductive processes to be much more disturbing than "child", and I doubt I'm alone in this. And no, I don't find it more appropriately descriptive to say the child "leaches" rather than "is nurtured".

If the Pro-Life side is discouraged, by rules of this debate, to use "child" because it is emotive, I think it only fair the Pro-Choice side should refrain from using terms that generate even more upsetting emotion in their opposition.

We can agree whole-heartedly on "murder", and that dispite its emotiveness it is key to this debate. However the terminology of what to call the offspring is not key. Can we at least search for a term that is not offensive to either side?

"Rather, a new part of me begins growing inside. I don't give a rat's ass about genetics, biology or DNA in this issue. I have no knowledge of such things, and I don't need them to answer these questions. If I choose to have an abortion, it is a part of me that will be cut out and lost. If I choose to carry the child to term, it will remain a part of me until that umbilical cord is cut and it can begin to be a person separate from me.

Maybe if you did have knowledge of biology you would know not to make such statements. I'm not going to take any sides in this debate, but it has been shown that the mother's immune system attacks a newly formed fetus because the body recognizes it as foreign tissue. The fetus survives because of an enzyme it produces that suppresses the mother's immune reaction. If the fetus cannot combat the mother's immune reaction, then a miscarriage occurs. The main point is that if the fetus were a part of the mother, then the mother's immune system would not attack it. The argument that a mother can do as she wishes with her own body, then, does not hold any weight regarding abortion.

Maybe if you did have knowledge of biology you would know not to make such statements. I'm not going to take any sides in this debate, but it has been shown that the mother's immune system attacks a newly formed fetus because the body recognizes it as foreign tissue. The fetus survives because of an enzyme it produces that suppresses the mother's immune reaction. If the fetus cannot combat the mother's immune reaction, then a miscarriage occurs. The main point is that if the fetus were a part of the mother, then the mother's immune system would not attack it. The argument that a mother can do as she wishes with her own body, then, does not hold any weight regarding abortion.
And I need to know this why....? That my child can be miscarried because of chemical interactions does not make it any less a part of me, and has nothing to do with "doing anything I wish with my body". I already cannot do anything I wish with my body --I cannot, for instance, have my liver or brain removed.

Here is my view. I live in a black and white world, where something is either good, or bad. Saying there is an in-between only complicates things. However, this is one situation in which there IS a viable in-between. As to actual abortion and the killing of the fetus, I suppose in the grand scheme of things, coupled with my limited world view, this would be labled, "Wrong." However, conversely, what pro-lifers do not seem to understand, is that the people who actually undergo an abortion, more often than not, do so of their own free will. To try and tell this person that they are not allowed to do something they wish to, even though it may seem immoral, is also, "Wrong."

Lets say a woman is raped. Sometime later, she discovers she is pregnant. She researches every possible alternative to having this pregnency, (adoption, family looking after the baby, etc., etc.), and decides that abortion is what she truly desires. Now let us say that she has the abortion, entirely her choice, and is immediately ostrachized by the community. She she shunned by her friends as a, "murderess," and is despised by society. She loses her job, she loses her friends, and no one will date her because she is, "Damaged Goods." Her life....is over.

Now imagine she is your daughter. Your wife. Your sister. Your friend.

Imagine she is you. Is condemning her choice right? Is imposing on her free will right? Is destroying her life the way she destroyed her pregnency right?

Will you sink to that level?

bloody hell, is this thing still going?

No, you just took the wrong pill.

Maybe if you did have knowledge of biology you would know not to make such statements. I'm not going to take any sides in this debate, but it has been shown that the mother's immune system attacks a newly formed fetus because the body recognizes it as foreign tissue. The fetus survives because of an enzyme it produces that suppresses the mother's immune reaction. If the fetus cannot combat the mother's immune reaction, then a miscarriage occurs. The main point is that if the fetus were a part of the mother, then the mother's immune system would not attack it. The argument that a mother can do as she wishes with her own body, then, does not hold any weight regarding abortion.

If *you* knew biology, you would know that the human immune system would attack everything, except it is specifically conditioned to not attack certain cells. This is another example of specific conditioning to not attack certain cells - and has little to do with proving anything about the organism status of the fetus.

And I need to know this why....? That my child can be miscarried because of chemical interactions does not make it any less a part of me, and has nothing to do with "doing anything I wish with my body". I already cannot do anything I wish with my body --I cannot, for instance, have my liver or brain removed.

The post was not about miscarriages. It was pointing out that the mother's body doesn't recognize the fetus as part of the mother's body. Saying that a person can have an abortion because it is their body would then be a faulty argument because the fetus is not a part of the mother's body. The statement about miscarriages was only to help illustrate that the fetus must combat the effects of the mother's T cell reaction.

If *you* knew biology, you would know that the human immune system would attack everything, except it is specifically conditioned to not attack certain cells. This is another example of specific conditioning to not attack certain cells - and has little to do with proving anything about the organism status of the fetus.

I apologize if I sounded rude or condescending in my first post, but I'm not sure how your post refutes my statements. If you could elaborate I would appreciate it.

The post was not about miscarriages. It was pointing out that the mother's body doesn't recognize the fetus as part of the mother's body. Saying that a person can have an abortion because it is their body would then be a faulty argument because the fetus is not a part of the mother's body. The statement about miscarriages was only to help illustrate that the fetus must combat the effects of the mother's T cell reaction.
The mother recognizes the fetus as a part of her --that's what matters. It is a component of her body. That she may miscarry is unfortunate, but not really relevant.

Obviously not everyone feels this way about the fetus, as is evident by some of the arguments on this board. But many do, and to refer to it as a "parasite" or even as some sort of separate entity is annoying to say the least.

I apologize if I sounded rude or condescending in my first post, but I'm not sure how your post refutes my statements. If you could elaborate I would appreciate it.

The immune system, in its basal state, would attack all cells, including your own. However, immune cells are conditioned by the body to recognize "self" and to not attack it. Since this is normally required by the body, the fetus conditioning the immune system does not necessarily prove that it is not part of the mother's body.

Of course, the whole argument is silly, as when someone says "It's her body," it has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a physical part of her. What they mean is that it is her body in which the fetus resides and she can, should she wish, keep things from using her resources.
This is even more true because the fetus, up until about the end of the first trimester, cannot really even be classified as an organism, much less a separate human organism. Therefore, the woman has the right to remove cells from her body as she wishes. Beyond that, things get more difficult and the ethical questions come into play much more.

The immune system, in its basal state, would attack all cells, including your own. However, immune cells are conditioned by the body to recognize "self" and to not attack it. Since this is normally required by the body, the fetus conditioning the immune system does not necessarily prove that it is not part of the mother's body.

I see what you're saying, but I wasn't referring to the immune cells being conditioned not to attack anything. I was pointing to the fact that the mother's immune system actually does attack the fetus. It is because of the fetus's defensive mechanisms that it survives, not the conditioning of the mother's immune cells.

I see what you're saying, but I wasn't referring to the immune cells being conditioned not to attack anything. I was pointing to the fact that the mother's immune system actually does attack the fetus. It is because of the fetus's defensive mechanisms that it survives, not the conditioning of the mother's immune cells.

No, if the immune system actually attacks, the fetus is destroyed. However, as you put it, the fetus gives off an enzyme that keeps the cells from attacking it altogether, similar in principle to the mother's own cells.

I need to double-check, but I believe you are incorrect here in regards to their legality. I doubt there is a hard and fast rule for it, but I know that people have refused to save the life of another because of a real or percieved danger to themselves and had negligence cases thrown out of court after charges were filed by the family. Heck, stuff like that happens in battle all the time. ("I'll cover you" "oh crap") A phobia of needles would count as an example in this case.



Personally, rather than abortion, I would prefer a system that removed and stored the embryos until such time as a willing mother was ready to care for them. That system isn't completely feasable at the moment. Until such time as it does, you are forcing a duty upon a woman (and only a pregnant one) that no other person has to bear. You are forcing her to risk her life and health for another. This is something that noone else is ever forced to do in this country. (at least until the next draft starts)



We have a saying in the south, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." It's a simple statement, but I believe it illustrates a valid point in this discussion. Potentiality doesn't equate to actuality. Every cell in a human's body is potentially a human being and certainly an embryo is. However we do not call an egg a chicken, we call it an egg. Why must some people insist on calling a fetus a human when it has not yet become so. (I realize this paragraph is arbitrary and doesn't really add a point to the debate. I am not trying to argue on your above paragraph. I am simply making a seperate comment that was brought forth from your above paragraph)



A severed toe, meets your own criteria if kept in the right environment (the way a zygote has to be). The criteria for life you listed earlier (on page 92), was that it have order (yes), growth and devlopment (yes), reproduce (no, unless you count cell division, which is all a zygote can do), energy utilization (yes), respond to environment (yes, chemically, in the same way that an early stage zygote does), evolutionary adaptation (no, but since every cell in a severed toe is potentially a full huma, then yes).



Legally, since many birth control pills and definately the morning after pill both prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, both would be defined as murder if the zygote is given human rights from conception onward.



A woman is 'pregnant' from the moment of conception onward. Unless you are considering implantation of the zygote to be the point at which pregnancy begins. Since the law represents absolutes, and not greys, and ignorance is not considered a valid defense, if a woman is liable for duty of care from conception onward then she is potentially negligent for failing to remain constantly prepared for pregnancy. You could certainly write the laws in such a way as to give the courts a lot of leway here, but then you introduce a great potential for abuse on the part of both adamantly pro-life or adamantly pro-choice judges.



All pregnancies present know substantial risk to the life of the mother. Even a mother and embryo deemed completely healthy. Beyond the 'life risks' are all the health risks that are a direct result of pregnancy or are exacerbated by it. Then one must realize that there are the social risks involved on top of that. Loss of job, residence, family, friends, a lover, etc. One cannot discount that these must play a part in defining how decisions are made in the law regarding abortion. And since, generally, individuals are much more capable of calculating risks to themselves than others are it falls on individuals to make and take responsibility for the results of their own decisions regarding this.



Done quite well. All of the above was said amicably. If it doesn't sound as such, assume I wrote it poorly and not that I was intending offense or insult. I lack the time currently to review as well.

I am basing Negligence on Prosser and Keeton, Torts 5th Edition, and Prosser Wade and Schwarts, Torts, 10th Edition p 418 notes 11 and 12, and Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 323-324

I like your idea, and hope such a time comes. But that also poses a moral dilemma (will not discuss at present). With respect to duty it would also be extended to the father, not just the mother. He could also act so as to terminate a pregnancy intentionally or negligently, so the duty extends to him as well, ACtually the duty would extend to anyone who intentionally or negligently terminates the pregnancy.

I must have left out growth and development, which is a major mistake on my part. It is alive, same as a fetus or zygote would be as you illustrate, however the genetic interpretation does not allow for growth and development of the toe as an organism from one stage to the next, ending with the ability to sustain itself. I am looking at the qualifications of life as applied to all stages of growth and develoment as to determine a life cycle. A zygote is one stage of growth and development that the qualifications of life applies to. A toe does not have such growth and development, and thus does not have a life cycle.

You are right, a zygote does meet the qualification of life, and as such I should not do what I am seeking to avoid, draw an arbitrary line. My point is that it is not known by a mother when a zygote comes into being. Therefore, she is not ignorant of law but ignorant of the circumstances invoking it, and is not held liable for negligence (Prosser and Keeton, Torts 5th edition, discussed throughout section on Negligence). Since fertilization does not follow sexual intercourse for every instance, it can not be assumed that it does. Therefore, a woman has no way of knowing, or can be expected to have known, fertilization occurs, and would not be liable for use of morning after pills or other contraceptives.

For a pregnancy to be determinated when a duty is owed the risk of death would have to be known with substantial certainty, this means above natural occurence. There would have to be some known condition that elevates the risk to the mother. Weak heart or body etc, that makes the mother incapable of maintaining or bringing the pregnancy to term without an increased risk to death. I have the idea in my head, it is just difficult to pen to paper, sorry. But hope that clears it up somewhat.

No offense or insult taken, and the same holds true for me. thank you for this discussion. Again, please critique literally. :)

because of a real or percieved danger to themselves and had negligence cases thrown out of court after charges were filed by the family.

That is when the duty terminates. In a case such as pregnancy, given the natural processes involved, the qualifier would have to be greater than naturally occuring. As it would have been considered with the original affirmative act. Those cases that are thrown out is because that affirmative actor came to realize the danger was greater than actually percieved or anticipated. So, when a woman becomes aware of the greater than natural threat brought about by the affirmative act, she would be justified to terminate it.

I will look into this in more detail, but that is what the Hornbook and Casebook outline as how the law interprets such acts.

Actually, with respect to legality: In this scenario you have entered into an undertaking of an affirmative action.Once you assume the duty and responsibility, as outlined in this case of donating blood under these circumstances, you can not abandone the person whose reliance on your promise to aid is detrimental. Failure to do so would be negligent conduct.

I agree with you. That's why I was not definitive, and said it could be justified. Then I outlined the difference between donation and pregnancy.

I do not believe in a right to life, that implies the right not die. I am emphasizing a duty of care with respect to the fetus to allow it to continue its life cycle.

My quagmire, at present, is whether I should consider the life cycle to be: all those stages of development of an organism at which the qualifications for life can apply. Grave and you have illustrated that I should not, and that since we are more complex, the life cycle should only be considered as existing when it has developed a neural system. I am debating this with myself, and more reasons as to why I should, and not consider this an arbitrarily point of of development with respect to the life cycle would be greatly appreciated.

I can, with consistency, disagree that my stance does not consider a toe to be alive, as its genetic activities are not such that the toe is growing and developing at a point on its life cycle, as it does not have one. The to is not growing and developing with a potential to someday be capable of begeting another toe.

Now, I am aware of the implications my stance would have on the law. And understand that there is a period of time between copulation, and fertilization, and when the life cycle of a new being begins, which the mother is not aware of. Therefore, there is a period of time after the act of intercourse which a mother does not know, or have reason to know a new life has begun. It is foreseeable that she may become pregnant during this time, but still preventable via the use of birth control or the morning after pill or other actions which can be taken to ellimate the possibility of pregnancy (there is a chemical available that immediately forces female animals to cycle, will have to get back to you with the name). This would mean there is no cause of action, as the act was committed within a time that pregnancy is indeterminable. So, if a woman does not desire pregnancy after copulation, there is a means to prevent it before a new life cycle has begun.

However, if precautions are not taken, and the female becomes pregnant, then there would be a duty to care for that growing and developing organism which both parents share. Should the mother or father breach that duty, criminal and civil actions could then be brought by the state or other parent for negligence represnting the interest of the developing organism. The same way the court adjudicates against a person for terminating a being on behalf of society, and its parent or owner (you kick my dog, injuring it, or killing it).

Abortion would still be allowed so long as the pregnancy presents a known substantial risk to the life of the mother.

Grave & Pithica: This has been prepared quickly and without review or deep thought. Please critique liberally.

Well, I agree with you in terms of right to life... i.e. I don't believe there IS a 'right to life', except for what we gain ourselves, or is gained for us.

You argue here that the morning-after pill is acceptable as a birth-control... and yet, you argued previously that a cell is a human life from formation of the conceptus... are you changing your verdict, or are you saying that a woman can reasonable 'abort' if she isn't SURE she's pregnant?

A thought comes to mind, with your idea of someone kicking a dog. I have heard of court cases, where a pet was kicked (for example), injuring it, or killing it... and the person attacking the animal suffers a legal punishment for the act... and you equate this with the duty of care that 'parents' would have for a foetus... I wonder what your thinking is on the idea of someone kicking a dog, and it 'miscarrying' it's puppies?

I think it is dangerous to start giving the non-formed foetus legal rights. I feel pretty leery over the situation that was recently faced where the Peterson baby was given legal status sufficient that a double homicide verdict could be reported, and that was an 8 month foetus.

I just think this starts a whole grey-area, where individual rights are allowed to be sublimated - as in this situation, where the 'human' rights of the individual become less important than the rights accorded to the 'foetus'.

Originally Posted by Willamena
"Rather, a new part of me begins growing inside. I don't give a rat's ass about genetics, biology or DNA in this issue. I have no knowledge of such things, and I don't need them to answer these questions. If I choose to have an abortion, it is a part of me that will be cut out and lost. If I choose to carry the child to term, it will remain a part of me until that umbilical cord is cut and it can begin to be a person separate from me.

Understood, but also, please analyze whether this debate transcends mere morality, and if it does, should all be expected to base their decision on that one criterion? Also, morality depends on a value judgment of life, when it begins, which biology helps to understand and characterize. Remember, moral arguments must have consistency, validity, and soundness. Biology aids in developing a stronger moral argument.



Please do not take this as a personal afront. It is not written as such.

Grave,

Hopefully some of the above posts addressed your most recent post.

You argue here that the morning-after pill is acceptable as a birth-control... and yet, you argued previously that a cell is a human life from formation of the conceptus... are you changing your verdict, or are you saying that a woman can reasonable 'abort' if she isn't SURE she's pregnant?

With respect to a duty of care I understand that if a woman can not know with certainty that fertilization has occurred within a reasonable time period, she should not be liable for such an act.

Would like to address dog issue, but feel I should give more thought to your hypoethetical-damn good question in other words.

Thank you,

I have a paper and test to work on and may not be able to respond further until Friday.

Take care,

and again, thank you for the great discussion :)

Surprisingly, had not looked at it from that viewpont.

How can a womans sovereignty be violated if it is a volitional act of the body? Unlike cancer it is not a mutation of cells, it is the body conducting natural processes. The body creates necessary elements, and the organ is not being usurped, but serving its purpose.

Just questions, not a stance.

Hiccups.

Okay - not a conventional response, I know.

A diaphragmatic spasm... totally involuntary, serves ONE actual purpose... but is almost never actually involved IN that purpose...

Not something you would want to happen... and when it happens, you try to stop it happening.

Just like pregnancy... it's great if you want it, but if you don't... it's hiccups!

(AND I would never have imagined me using that as a line in a debate!)

:)

Grave,

Hopefully some of the above posts addressed your most recent post.



With respect to a duty of care I understand that if a woman can not know with certainty that fertilization has occurred within a reasonable time period, she should not be liable for such an act.

Would like to address dog issue, but feel I should give more thought to your hypoethetical-damn good question in other words.

Thank you,

I have a paper and test to work on and may not be able to respond further until Friday.

Take care,

and again, thank you for the great discussion :)

Thank YOU for a great discussion... and for actually taking the time to think about your responses.

Good luck in the test... and we shall hopefully see you back here on Friday.

('Your' side NEEDS you!)

Seriously, thanks for a decent debate. :)

Now, is it honestly leaching nutrients. Or, does the mother supply nutrients. If a mother is malnutritioned, her body self terminates the pregnancy. Which lends itself to an inference of supply based on mothers intake of nutrients, not what the fetus demands.

Grave, a find on Response to stimuli:

And, what you posted was chemical reactions... there is nothing 'conscious' there... no response to stimulus OTHER than hormonal... and hormones are chemicals.

It just chemical reaction. It's like Chili peppers making food 'spicy'.

Hiccups.

Okay - not a conventional response, I know.

A diaphragmatic spasm... totally involuntary, serves ONE actual purpose... but is almost never actually involved IN that purpose...

Not something you would want to happen... and when it happens, you try to stop it happening.

Just like pregnancy... it's great if you want it, but if you don't... it's hiccups!

(AND I would never have imagined me using that as a line in a debate!)

:)

that's terrible

does the hiccup have its own set of DNA?

if you put the hiccup on life support will it grow into a huam being

were you once a hiccup?

Grave,

Understand the huccup remark, thank you.

However, one quick question as I pop in,


And, what you posted was chemical reactions... there is nothing 'conscious' there... no response to stimulus OTHER than hormonal... and hormones are chemicals.

It just chemical reaction. It's like Chili peppers making food 'spicy'.

What is conscious about the reaction of amoebas and other such organisms?

I ask because of how I interpret the life cycle as being those stages of development dictated by an organisms genetics to which the qualifications of life can be affirmatively applied. I distinguish it as an organism meeting the qualifications for life and having a life cycle, and classify the organism via genetics.

Thus, my quagmire, as it incorporates your previous remarks on us as complex beings, and sets your application of when neurology develops as one point in a stage of life.

I will work diligently to be back on Friday.

Although a debate, it is an educational experience for me (I view debates should be such, otherwise I am just typing out of ego, which makes the discussion pointless). And thank you and Pithica for your analysis and comments of my ideas on the matter. They are greatly appreciated.

I'm sorry, but I find words (and concepts) like "parasite" in reference to my reproductive processes to be much more disturbing than "child", and I doubt I'm alone in this. And no, I don't find it more appropriately descriptive to say the child "leaches" rather than "is nurtured".

If the Pro-Life side is discouraged, by rules of this debate, to use "child" because it is emotive, I think it only fair the Pro-Choice side should refrain from using terms that generate even more upsetting emotion in their opposition.

We can agree whole-heartedly on "murder", and that dispite its emotiveness it is key to this debate. However the terminology of what to call the offspring is not key. Can we at least search for a term that is not offensive to either side?

Erm... the Anti-Abortion faction still largely uses 'murder' as though it were the same as 'abortion'... despite the legal implications...

I call the 'thing' in the uterus a foetus, or a conceptus (to refer to the very early small-number-of-cells form) - because it avoids all the legal implications of calling it a baby. How about calling it a "sperm-contaminated egg inflammation"?

Erm... the Anti-Abortion faction still largely uses 'murder' as though it were the same as 'abortion'... despite the legal implications...

I call the 'thing' in the uterus a foetus, or a conceptus (to refer to the very early small-number-of-cells form) - because it avoids all the legal implications of calling it a baby. How about calling it a "sperm-contaminated egg inflammation"?

we're studying early US history in my class

and I can't fail to be reminded about how the south made a decided effort to make everyone stop calling slavery slavery

they referred to it as "our heritage", "that perticular institution" and "our way"

a baby is a baby is a baby no matter what you call it

and killing one will always be murder

Grave,

Understand the huccup remark, thank you.

However, one quick question as I pop in,

What is conscious about the reaction of amoebas and other such organisms?

I ask because of how I interpret the life cycle as being those stages of development dictated by an organisms genetics to which the qualifications of life can be affirmatively applied. I distinguish it as an organism meeting the qualifications for life and having a life cycle, and classify the organism via genetics.

Thus, my quagmire, as it incorporates your previous remarks on us as complex beings, and sets your application of when neurology develops as one point in a stage of life.

I will work diligently to be back on Friday.

Although a debate, it is an educational experience for me (I view debates should be such, otherwise I am just typing out of ego, which makes the discussion pointless). And thank you and Pithica for your analysis and comments of my ideas on the matter. They are greatly appreciated.

Quick response... see if I can get it to you before you log out for the week.

The quick answer is that WE as humans, do not consider our selves as sensitive on a chemical level.

Yes - some of our senses are chemically based, some physically based... but our model (we are back to complexity, aren't we) as a species requires MORE than just the ability to "shrink-from-bad-chemical" and "Attempt-to-engulf-yummy-chemical".

If WE functioned as unicellular creatures... we would not have the specialisation of cells we have.. we COULD consider an earlier response 'response-to-stimuli', becuase our less sophisticated 'senses'would operate on that level.

But we are far beyond unicellular, and our 'sensitivity' is based on a series of specialised cells... be they 'taste buds', the gyroscope cells of the cochlea, or the elaborate cones and rods of the eye. Also - we have a specialised system for HANDLING sensitivity... our nervous system.... and that is why my argument hinges on the formation of the nervous sytem (rather than the eyes, which are just a receptor, for example).

It is because human sensistivity is BASED around the nervous system... which isn't an integral 'machine' until the 20th+ week.

It is because human sensistivity is BASED around the nervous system... which isn't an integral 'machine' until the 20th+ week.

what part of the 20th. week?

what part of the 20th. week?

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

you don't burry a man around the time he'd dead

you don't amputate a leg around the time its infected


so why in all creation would you kill a person around the time they become a human being?

we're studying early US history in my class

and I can't fail to be reminded about how the south made a decided effort to make everyone stop calling slavery slavery

they referred to it as "our heritage", "that perticular institution" and "our way"

a baby is a baby is a baby no matter what you call it

and killing one will always be murder

Ah, someone studying american history. One assumes, from the above reference, that you are from a northern state.... do you realise that your 'northern state' historical text books are biased? Just the same as those in the south are/were?

A baby IS a baby. A foetus, however, is not a baby. And neither is a conceptus, or zygote.

Killing one will not always be murder, because murder is a legal term, and implies that the act commited is illegal killing.

Abortion isn't always illegal, so abortion isn't always 'murder'.

Also - since we have yet to actually prove a foetus fulfils the requirements of a human life, it cannot be murder anyway. (And that was half the travesty of the Scott Peterson case).

Ah, someone studying american history. One assumes, from the above reference, that you are from a northern state.... do you realise that your 'northern state' historical text books are biased? Just the same as those in the south are/were?

is a slave a slave?

A baby IS a baby. A foetus, however, is not a baby. And neither is a conceptus, or zygote.

when exactly does that non-human phase end?

Killing one will not always be murder, because murder is a legal term, and implies that the act commited is illegal killing.

legal definitions change, moral one don't

Abortion isn't always illegal, so abortion isn't always 'murder'.

when pray tell is abortion not legal in this country

Also - since we have yet to actually prove a foetus fulfils the requirements of a human life, it cannot be murder anyway. (And that was half the travesty of the Scott Peterson case).

I've got all the proof I need, and judging from the last election so do the majority of Americans

you don't burry a man around the time he'd dead

you don't amputate a leg around the time its infected

so why in all creation would you kill a person around the time they become a human being?

Considering that the 20th week is *way* past the point at which elective abortions are allowed, you don't.

Meanwhile, a test could be devised to determine whether or not ample nervous system activity was present.

I've got all the proof I need, and judging from the last election so do the majority of Americans

Now, now, we all know that the last election was much more about "keepin' those damn homosexuals from gettin' marriage" than it was about abortion.

Considering that the 20th week is *way* past the point at which elective abortions are allowed, you don't.

Meanwhile, a test could be devised to determine whether or not ample nervous system activity was present.

unfortunatly we live in America - abortions can be performed up untill the day of birth

what part of the 20th. week?
Feel free to read my earlier posts... I go into the formation of the nervous system in some more detail earlier in this thread.

Week 20 is the approximate earliest point at which formation of a coherent nervous system begins to take place.

By about the 24th week, it is accepted that the foetus has a neural network with the CAPACITY to respond to stimuli.... this still doesn't mean it CAN respond, or DOES respond.... just that the network is formed. This is the point at which coherent synaptic activity begins... the earliest point at which an actual 'output' can be detected from a foetal brain.

Week 20 is the approximate earliest point at which formation of a coherent nervous system begins to take place.

do we bury people when they are approximatly dead?

do we start chemo when some one approximatly has cancer?

unfortunatly we live in America - abortions can be performed up untill the day of birth

In America, elective abortions can only be performed up until the quickening (aka around the end of the first trimester) in all but one or two states.

And *no* state allows elective abortions after the fetus is viable. At that point, the only time abortions are allowed is if the woman's life is in danger or the fetus is dead/dying.

If you're going to argue, at least look at the law so that you don't look like a complete idiot.

unfortunatly we live in America - abortions can be performed up untill the day of birth

Not electively...

Someone who has seen the phrase 'partial-birth-abortion', but doesn't know what it means, is my guess....

do we bury people when they are approximatly dead?

do we start chemo when some one approximatly has cancer?

Are you trying to make a point?

Sure, I'll explain myself, using the logic process I've learned in my math classes.

1. The fetus has a DNA pattern of a homo sapiens, not of anything else. The fetus, therefore, is human.

2. The fetus is alive. To say it isn't really alive is like saying your pet dog isn't really alive. The fetus has cells that carry out all the biological functions that classify something as living. The fetus takes in nutrients, grows, matures, its cells reproduce, and it creates waste. The fetus is therefore alive.

3. Since the fetus is alive, it can be killed. Abortion ends the life processes of the fetus, killing it. Put 1 and 2 together, and guess what? Abortion is the killing of a human!

4. Seeing how a fetus has not yet been born and is not understanding, it is not capable of doing wrong. Therefore it is innocent. So abortion is the killing of an innocent human.

5. I know of no person who does not call the killing of an innocent person "murder." Now abortion is the murder of a human being.

I think all this is pretty obvious.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Who says happiness comes with an unwanted baby?
And that "bundle of joy" may also turn out to be another Dahmer or Berkowitz, or even Hitler.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

So what have we learned from the Peterson case? If the father wants to kill the unborn baby it's murder (it was two counts - mother and unborn child), but if the mother wants to, she's simply using her right to an abortion.

Also, when the woman wants to have an abortion, it's her baby...not the father's. Watch who's baby it becomes when someone needs to pay for it.

is a slave a slave?


Yes. Or no. Depends on your definition. A servant is a slave, in one sense, and so am I, since I am compelled to work in order to maintain my life.

By a slave, one assumes you mean... as in the issue of 'slavery' - by which, one must factor a society that condones slavery, a slavery economy, and a mechanism for the 'purchasing' of the 'rights' of a slave.

By that token... the 'wage slave' is not a slave, and neither is the hired servant.

But, interestingly, neither are 'bondage slaves'.


when exactly does that non-human phase end?


At the point at which the human definition takes over... currently, at the point of birth.


legal definitions change, moral one don't


Not true. And not worth arguing, if you have so little information that you would post this in the first place.


when pray tell is abortion not legal in this country


Before it was legalised? When it is not a 'legal' abortion.


I've got all the proof I need, and judging from the last election so do the majority of Americans

The last election.... in which 120 million americans voted - out of a population of more than three hundred million. That would mean that, even if EVERYONE that had voted, had voted one way, it still wouldn't be a majority.

And they didn't vote ONE WAY, did they... the electoral tallies are almost identical - both in number of electoral votes (where they were pretty much tied, except for the result of one state), and in number of actual votes... where the difference was something like 2%, I seem to recall.

One assumes you don't pay much attention to politics, either.

Just popped in after finishing a page (find myself more drawn to this discussion than studies).
Anti Pharisaism: I ask because of how I interpret the life cycle as being those stages of development dictated by an organisms genetics to which the qualifications of life can be affirmatively applied. I distinguish it as an organism meeting the qualifications for life and having a life cycle, and classify the organism via genetics.
Grave_n_Idle: If WE functioned as unicellular creatures... we would not have the specialisation of cells we have.. we COULD consider an earlier response 'response-to-stimuli', becuase our less sophisticated 'senses'would operate on that level.

The qualifications for life implicitly define a life cycle. Could a life cycle not be interpreted as those stages of development dictated by an organisms genetics to which the qualifications of life can be affirmatively applied?
Thus, a being is considered alive once it begins its life cycle. Note: Classification of any being coming from genetics.

That is my quagmire. If this is not a valid application of Biological knowledge, why is it not so?

This would lead me to say yes, the person kicking the dog could also be held liable to the owner for fetal...canines (not sure what to call them).

Thank you again Grave, take care :)

TJ: You would be interested in the discussions between AP, Grave_n_Idle, and Pithica. It is an in depth analysis of the points you presented.

And they didn't vote ONE WAY, did they... the electoral tallies are almost identical - both in number of electoral votes (where they were pretty much tied, except for the result of one state), and in number of actual votes... where the difference was something like 2%, I seem to recall.

One assumes you don't pay much attention to politics, either.

Wow. I seem to remember that after the election of 2000, Democrats called for a removal of the electoral college because it was undemocratic and only the popular vote should count. Now that Bush took the popular vote by three and a half million, suddenly it's the electoral vote that is important rather than the popular?

One assumes you don't pay as much attention to politics as you would have others believe.

Grave,

To clarify, if we do function as unicellular beings, would it not be considered one stage of growth and develpment during our life cycle, at which point we would be alive?

Take Care,

-AP

Sure, I'll explain myself, using the logic process I've learned in my math classes.

1. The fetus has a DNA pattern of a homo sapiens, not of anything else. The fetus, therefore, is human.

2. The fetus is alive. To say it isn't really alive is like saying your pet dog isn't really alive. The fetus has cells that carry out all the biological functions that classify something as living. The fetus takes in nutrients, grows, matures, its cells reproduce, and it creates waste. The fetus is therefore alive.

3. Since the fetus is alive, it can be killed. Abortion ends the life processes of the fetus, killing it. Put 1 and 2 together, and guess what? Abortion is the killing of a human!

4. Seeing how a fetus has not yet been born and is not understanding, it is not capable of doing wrong. Therefore it is innocent. So abortion is the killing of an innocent human.

5. I know of no person who does not call the killing of an innocent person "murder." Now abortion is the murder of a human being.

I think all this is pretty obvious.

1) "The fetus has a DNA pattern of a homo sapiens, not of anything else. The fetus, therefore, is human."

Human blood has the DNA patterns of a human, not of anything else... so human blood is human. Sperm carries human DNA also, so that must be human, too. And vomitus... once you pick out all the chunky carroty bits, is all human DNA contaminated, so that must be human, too. And faeces... ignoring the digested matter, they are ALL human DNA, so that must be human...

1 - Fallacious argument. DENIED.

2) "The fetus is alive". On so many levels, this isn't true. First - the foetus doesn't feed or excrete waste... a seperate 'organism' does that for it... and is ALSO formed entirely of human DNA that meets 'requirements' for life - the Placenta... and yet, I don't see you arguing human rights for the afterbirth.

The conceptus doesn't meet most of the requirements for life, and the foetus cannot respond to external stimuli until at least the 20th week or later.

2 - Fallacious argument. DENIED.

3) "Since the fetus is alive, it can be killed. Abortion ends the life processes of the fetus, killing it. Put 1 and 2 together, and guess what? Abortion is the killing of a human!"

3 - Based on flawed logic, and not absolutely inferred EVEN IF 1) and 2) were true. DENIED.

4) "Seeing how a fetus has not yet been born and is not understanding, it is not capable of doing wrong. Therefore it is innocent. So abortion is the killing of an innocent human."

Ignorance is no defence. A foetus cannot be innocent or guilty, since it has no reasoning, has no ability to process a morality, or cogitate a process, or premeditate an action.

4 - Based on flawed logic, and also on the previously invalidated reasoning of 1) and 2). DENIED.

5) "I know of no person who does not call the killing of an innocent person "murder." Now abortion is the murder of a human being".

Some people use words like 'euthanasia'... which, I assume you can comprehend? That is the killing of (one assumes) an innocent person - but is not murder. Suicide, also, is not murder. And neither is accidental death.

Innocence has nothing to do with the term 'murder'. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of another human being. Abortion is legal, and a foetus is not a 'human being'.... so, abortion isn't murder.

5 - Based on flawed logic. Fallacious argument. DENIED.

I also think it is pretty obvious.

Grave,

To clarify, if we do function as unicellular beings, would it not be considered one stage of growth and develpment during our life cycle, at which point we would be alive?

Take Care,

-AP

Yes, perhaps it would.

But, the conceptus DOESN'T act as a unicellular being... it acts as a repeatedly splitting cell, one stage in the process of the formation of a living organism.

If a conceptus actually COULD function as a unicellular creature, before 'evolving' (if you will...) into a more complex creature - I would grant that the conceptus was 'alive' (although, I then might argue that THAT lifeform wasn't strictly speaking a human life).

See you Friday... same bat-time, same bat-channel.

Wow. I seem to remember that after the election of 2000, Democrats called for a removal of the electoral college because it was undemocratic and only the popular vote should count. Now that Bush took the popular vote by three and a half million, suddenly it's the electoral vote that is important rather than the popular?

One assumes you don't pay as much attention to politics as you would have others believe.

Did you read my post?

In the part you "quoted", it quite clearly refers to both the Electoral count, and the actual 'popular' count. And, there was little to no difference between either method.... certainly insufficient margin for Bush's current claim of a 'mandate'... but that is a different issue.

One assumes you don't pay as much attention to other people's posts as you would have others believe.

4) "Seeing how a fetus has not yet been born and is not understanding, it is not capable of doing wrong. Therefore it is innocent. So abortion is the killing of an innocent human."

Ignorance is no defence. A foetus cannot be innocent or guilty, since it has no reasoning, has no ability to process a morality, or cogitate a process, or premeditate an action.

Note: (Application in general, not to fetus) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of circumstances invoking the law is a defence. Prosser on Torts.

Both may want to re-evaluate your comments on that point.

One last question Grave: does that cell qualify as being alive, and if so would it be considered a stage of development in the human life cycle?

Take Care,

-AP

In America, elective abortions can only be performed up until the quickening (aka around the end of the first trimester) in all but one or two states.

And *no* state allows elective abortions after the fetus is viable. At that point, the only time abortions are allowed is if the woman's life is in danger or the fetus is dead/dying.

If you're going to argue, at least look at the law so that you don't look like a complete idiot.

partial birth abortion anyone?

Are you trying to make a point?

if your willing to aproximate this than why not other things aswell?

partical birth abortion anyone?
partical birth? whoa, medicine must have taken some serious leaps while i wasn't looking!

well I really don't see the point in debating the morality of abortions because that isn't the issue. I don't think anyone is really pro-abortion, like I've never seen anyone encourage them, they just want women to have the choice. Abortion is an incredibly personal issue and nobody has the right to stop women from making a choice that they've thought long and hard about and feel that it is necessary to do.

Also "partial birth abortion" is a really heinous/non-scientific term... in theory it could be used to mean just about any abortion. The one that it is probably referring to though is intact dilation & extraction and this is a really rare procedure (.02% of all abortions) that is only used for the safety of the mother and nothing else

I don't think anyone is really pro-abortion, like I've never seen anyone encourage them, they just want women to have the choice.
not to ruin your fun, but i am totally pro-abortion. i think women should be encouraged to abort, and i think abortion is a far more responsible choice than carrying to term in over half of the pregnancies that occur world wide. of course, i don't believe it is right to FORCE anybody to have an abortion, so in that sense i am still very much pro-choice.

well I really don't see the point in debating the morality of the death penalty because that isn't the issue. I don't think anyone is really pro-death penalty, like I've never seen anyone encourage them, they just want the jury to have the choice. the death penalty is an incredibly personal issue and nobody has the right to stop the jury from making a choice that they've thought long and hard about and feel that it is necessary to do.

not to ruin your fun, but i am totally pro-abortion. i think women should be encouraged to abort, and i think abortion is a far more responsible choice than carrying to term in over half of the pregnancies that occur world wide. of course, i don't believe it is right to FORCE anybody to have an abortion, so in that sense i am still very much pro-choice.

that is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard

and watched the whole demicratic national convention, so you were up against some stern competition

but that took the cake

well I really don't see the point in debating the morality of the death penalty because that isn't the issue. I don't think anyone is really pro-death penalty, like I've never seen anyone encourage them, they just want the jury to have the choice. the death penalty is an incredibly personal issue and nobody has the right to stop the jury from making a choice that they've thought long and hard about and feel that it is necessary to do.
um, dude? there are TONS of people who are pro-death penalty, who very much encourage killing criminals of all sorts, and who think that a sentence of death should be mandatory for certain offense (i.e. the juries would very much NOT have the choice). the death penalty is also not a personal issue, it is a societal issue (because it involves the government's right to punish crimes in certain ways), while the right to individual medical treatment is an issue only for the parties directly involved. i understand that you were trying to make a parallel, but it totally does not work in this case.

that is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard

and watched the whole demicratic national convention, so you were up against some stern competition

but that took the cake
oh no! Scharndtopia thinks my perspective is stupid! even though he has provided no solid rebuttals for any of the arguments against him, i think i will just trust his judgment...if he says it's stupid, by golly he must be right! i will change all my views to avoid more of his biting insults and sharp wit!

oh no! Scharndtopia thinks my perspective is stupid! even though he has provided no solid rebuttals for any of the arguments against him, i think i will just trust his judgment...if he says it's stupid, by golly he must be right! i will change all my views to avoid more of his biting insults and sharp wit!

the insinuation that abortion is responsible is laughable

abortion is if anything selfish and irresponsible, responsibility would have been chastity or at least useing contriceptives - murdering an innocent human being becase of your mistake is a crime, not a responsibility

Also "partial birth abortion" is a really heinous/non-scientific term... in theory it could be used to mean just about any abortion. The one that it is probably referring to though is intact dilation & extraction and this is a really rare procedure (.02% of all abortions) that is only used for the safety of the mother and nothing else

you sure 'bout that

because so far in as I know there are no laws regulating it to just that catagory

hmmm death penalty= personal issue eh
like they're there to represent the people of the nation not themselves
and well you can debate about the morality of the death penalty because it is a n affair of the state not individual

plus yeah... encouraging abortions... alright I suppose that that's valid but like I really believe that women who are considering abortions should ignore the detractors and supporters of abortion and just read about and make their decisions based on hopefully unbiased (as possible) information. Nobody should interfere when people are deciding what to do

well um I guess that you're right
but like I don't think anyone of sane mind would decide to have an abortion a matter of days before birth like they should have made up their mind by then
and yeah dude .02% of abortions that is like 1 in ever 5000 abortions like the procedure just doesn't happen often and like is only ever "on the table" when the mother's life is in jeopardy

and yes I'll concede that some people do abort irresponsively but like for one thing it's their choice so f uck my moral objection to it and like why should their actions be justified to stop women who have actually thought hard about it

Understood, but also, please analyze whether this debate transcends mere morality, and if it does, should all be expected to base their decision on that one criterion? Also, morality depends on a value judgment of life, when it begins, which biology helps to understand and characterize. Remember, moral arguments must have consistency, validity, and soundness. Biology aids in developing a stronger moral argument.
I'm not trying to suggest everyone base their decisions on my definitions. I'm just frustrated at not being able to participate at all because the debate has grown in a direction that defines for its purposes terms that are not only unworkable, in my opinion, but highly emotive. I think I'll just bow out now.

Please do not take this as a personal afront. It is not written as such.
I don't.

partial birth abortion anyone?

you can't ask for a partial birth abortion. It normally happens when the baby is brain dead and/or the mother will be killed in the process. Now is that brain dead baby worth more than that live, functioning mother? I mean the type of brain dead that can breathe, and that's it. No talking, few motor skills, the type that is lead around by the jingling of bright objects (we have one boy like that at my school) Babies like that will never do anyhting but use resources. No, really they can't do anything, literally. Should a mother die for them? I think not. :confused: :(

*Bump* :p

you can't ask for a partial birth abortion. It normally happens when the baby is brain dead and/or the mother will be killed in the process.

Then how does one occur? The doctor elects to conduct the operation with or without consent?

(Just questioning Logic to get this back on the front page for thirty or so seconds)

we're studying early US history in my class

and I can't fail to be reminded about how the south made a decided effort to make everyone stop calling slavery slavery

they referred to it as "our heritage", "that perticular institution" and "our way"

a baby is a baby is a baby no matter what you call it

and killing one will always be murder

Is an egg a chick? Is a child an adult? Is an apple blossom a tree? Is a rose seed a rose bush?

If you can't answer yes to those questions and back it up with some founded and reasoned arguments then you aren't allowed to call a fetus a baby and be taken seriously in this debate.

Potentiality does not equate to actuality.

you don't burry a man around the time he'd dead

you don't amputate a leg around the time its infected

so why in all creation would you kill a person around the time they become a human being?

If it can start at any point in the 20th week (actually at any point between week 20 and 24 to be completely accurate), a simple way to limit it would be to say you can't do it after the 19th week. (i.e. the day the 20th week starts). Duh.

if your willing to aproximate this than why not other things aswell?

It's not a matter of approximating.

I am not saying that I am unsure of the date, so I approximate... I am saying that it varies slightly.

The EARLIEST that coherent neural processes take place is the 20th week - this is the lower end of the bell curve.

In most foetuses, the coherent neural process is formed by the 24th week - this is the upper end of the bell curve.

So - most neural processes are going to form coherently sometime around the 22nd week - but there is a little give and take. For a fully operable neural network, you are, therefore, looking at about week 24.

Thus - it is pretty safe to assume that there is no neural network before 20 weeks.

the insinuation that abortion is responsible is laughable

abortion is if anything selfish and irresponsible, responsibility would have been chastity or at least useing contriceptives - murdering an innocent human being becase of your mistake is a crime, not a responsibility

Your opinion.

And, that's all it is, opinion.... hollow rhetoric.

Show some evidence to back up your claims.

Oh - and the whole 'murdering' thing... it's old.

the insinuation that abortion is responsible is laughable

i think the insinuation that abortion is irresponsible is laughable. do you really think i am going to care what your personal opinion on the subject is? especially since you have been totally unable to defend your positions against the points being made against you? do you honestly think that your personal feelings are so convincing?


abortion is if anything selfish and irresponsible, responsibility would have been chastity or at least useing contriceptives

the fact that you don't realize people DO use contraceptives (and still get pregnant) is yet another example of your total disconnect with reality. i don't feel safe knowing that you are allowed to make decisions about your own sexual and reproductive practices, let alone having people like you making decisions for me and the rest of humanity.


- murdering an innocent human being becase of your mistake is a crime, not a responsibility
whether or not the fetus is a human being has not been established, as you have totally failed to show how an apple seed is a tree and a pile of lumber is a house.

but even if we were to assume that a fetus is a human being, it would not be murder for a woman to withhold the use of her body for the sustanence of another human being...even if that other human being dies. no human is allowed to force another human to give up their body and their freedoms.

you seem to have trouble understanding the definition of simple words like "human being" and "murder," and i would really like to know if you are honestly confused by those terms or if you are being intentionally ignorant.

Here is some evidence:
It is legal to get an abortion at 12 weeks, and by that time the baby's vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

You mean to suggest that the state has the has the right to determine that life begins at 12 weeks? That my friend is that definition of an arbitrary, baseless, and ridiculous claim.

In addition, abortion being federally legal was the decision of an activist bench who imposed their own social agenda unconstitutionally by over-extending a clause that was not meant to be applied the way it was, as part of the 9th ammendment.

There is your evidence. You are incorrect.

is a slave a slave?

Yes.

when exactly does that non-human phase end?

When the fetus becomes a viable and complete human being, around the 20th-24th week when the nervous sytem and brain form.

legal definitions change, moral one don't

Poppycock and baulderdash. Polygamy was perfectly moral for millinea. So were slavery, murder (as long as it wasn't someone in your tribe), homosexuality, cannibalism, and rape. Morals change all the time. Just because you are too shortsighted to look into history beyond the idyllic 50's doesn't mean the rest of History didn't happen.

when pray tell is abortion not legal in this country

Elective abortion is already not legal in the third trimester, when the fetus meets all the criteria for being human. So an elective abortion never meets any of the criteria for being murder.

I've got all the proof I need, and judging from the last election so do the majority of Americans

It is very naive of you to think that Abortion had much to do with the results of this election. Only ~23% of voters polled considered 'morality' to be the number one issue. And of them only 90% voted for Bush. So even if every 'Moral' voter that voted for bush considered abortion the top issue (which, if we're honest, we know it was them dirty dirty gays), then that is still only ~20.7% of the electorate. This ~21% is only from about 60% of registered voters (the average voter turnout), which are only about 80% of elligible voters, which is only about 70% of the population. So best case scenario, you are talking about ~19 million out of ~260 million people in this country that care enough to vote on that as their primary issue. That doesn't count as a majority in any math book I've ever read.

unfortunatly we live in America - abortions can be performed up untill the day of birth

When did they let you out of the padded room to type this drivel? Read a book. Elective abortions are not allowed in the third trimester. The only abortions that are allowed are those where the life of the mother is severely at risk, the fetus is already dead, or in a rare court adjuticated exception (in the case of rape or incest).

And in addition, it is not only the woman who should have the freedom to do whatever she wants to "her body."

The fetus, as I have established, is its own body.

Also, I do not know if you are innocently ignorant, but in order to have a baby, sometimes a father needs to be involved in a process called sex. And by practice, even if the father opposed the abortion and wanted to raise the child, the mother could get an abortion anyways. That is wrong, and a terrible thing to do to another human adult. That shouldn't be the simple perogative of one parent.

A woman shouldn't have the chance to abort a life, let alone ruin another adult's.

Here is some evidence:
It is legal to get an abortion at 12 weeks, and by that time the baby's vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

You mean to suggest that the state has the has the right to determine that life begins at 12 weeks? That my friend is that definition of an arbitrary, baseless, and ridiculous claim.

In addition, abortion being federally legal was the decision of an activist bench who imposed their own social agenda unconstitutionally by over-extending a clause that was not meant to be applied the way it was, as part of the 9th ammendment.

There is your evidence. You are incorrect.
for the billionth time, allowing abortion has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHEN LIFE BEGINS. life does not "begin" at any point in the human life cycle, because there is no point at which non-living tissue suddenly springs to life. an egg is alive, a sperm is alive, a zygote is alive, a fetus is alive, a baby is alive, an adult human is alive, and the adult will have living gametes that could procede along this cycle again.

whether or not the fetus is a human being is debatable, but that debate is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to abortion rights. no human being has the right to another human being's body, period. if you want to deny a woman's right to choose based on "fetus' rights" then you will be granting rights to fetuses that no human being has.

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage. Only time i will condone an abortion is if the woman was raped by her father and the odds of her AND the baby dying at 99.9%, even then i would try to save the baby by a premature seisection and try and keep it alive with incubator and medical technology. Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.
i think you are deluded mate, first incest is illegal due to the increased chance of birth defects, so the baby could have a poor life expectancy, or have a poor quality of life is that really fair on the child?

Also, I do not know if you are innocently ignorant, but in order to have a baby, sometimes a father needs to be involved in a process called sex. And by practice, even if the father opposed the abortion and wanted to raise the child, the mother could get an abortion anyways. That is wrong, and a terrible thing to do to another human adult. That shouldn't be the simple perogative of one parent.

the woman has the right to deny the use of her body for incubation, and the father has the same right to deny the use of his body. neither has the right to choose what the other does with their body. both have totally equal rights in this situation.

the woman has the right to deny the use of her body for incubation, and the father has the same right to deny the use of his body. neither has the right to choose what the other does with their body. both have totally equal rights in this situation.


Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other she has the right without his consent to abort a fetus that he created, thus ending the life/potential life (however you choose to view it) without his consent. Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.

The qualifications for life implicitly define a life cycle. Could a life cycle not be interpreted as those stages of development dictated by an organisms genetics to which the qualifications of life can be affirmatively applied?
Thus, a being is considered alive once it begins its life cycle. Note: Classification of any being coming from genetics.


So, if you destroy an appleseed, you are chopping down a tree? If you egg a house you are killing a chicken (or dozens)?

Why must it keep being insisted that potentiality equates to actuality?

Just so you know, I haven't replied to your other posts in regards to the legal argument, as I do not have case law in any way handy at the moment. In addition, even if i do find myself with it, I would need to take time to educate myself on it's meanings and applications before I use it in debate as IANAL.

It's very challenging debating with you, and that is the highest compliment I can give.

partial birth abortion anyone?

Partial birth abortion was only ever performed when the fetus was already 'dead', had a severe physical deformity that would kill it quickly and possibly kill the mother (hydrocephalus (sp?) for example), or represented in some other way a grave and present risk to the life of the mother.

If you had actually taken two seconds to understand the issue before you passed judgement in your ignorance you'd already know that. This was NEVER legal for elective abortions.

you sure 'bout that

because so far in as I know there are no laws regulating it to just that catagory

You really are a poster-boy for ignorance.

There isn't a state, not one single one, that allows for elective abortions at a period in the pregnancy where partial birth abortions are an option.

Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other she has the right without his consent to abort a fetus that he created, thus ending the life/potential life (however you choose to view it) without his consent.Yes. It is no longer a matter of his consent, and the way you put it appears to me (apologies if you did not intend this) to suggest that the impregnation occured contrary to the SO's wishes. Before there's a suspicion of a cognniscent 'third party', the woman has or should have) total control over her body, and it is only after that that it is a 'rights of mother vs rights of child' issue.

Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.It is terrible that a woman should be impregnated without her consent. Even if the sex was consensual, consent to sex does not equate to consent to impregnation, in this day and age (even if it ever did totally did) when performed without knowledge or availability of contaraception, or without the ability to use it (which includes mental incapacity like drunkeness and state-sponsored ignorance).

Then how does one occur? The doctor elects to conduct the operation with or without consent?

(Just questioning Logic to get this back on the front page for thirty or so seconds)

Of course the mother must consent to one. That doesn't however make the procedure elective any more than a doctor needing permission to remove an erupted appendix, they either do it or you die. The woman still has a choice, it's just a false choice, say yes, or absolve the doctor of any guilt when you die.

Here is some evidence:
It is legal to get an abortion at 12 weeks, and by that time the baby's vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

You mean to suggest that the state has the has the right to determine that life begins at 12 weeks? That my friend is that definition of an arbitrary, baseless, and ridiculous claim.

In addition, abortion being federally legal was the decision of an activist bench who imposed their own social agenda unconstitutionally by over-extending a clause that was not meant to be applied the way it was, as part of the 9th ammendment.

There is your evidence. You are incorrect.


The foetus cannot cry at twelve weeks, and the brain is not fully formed.

I cannot be bothered to even read the rest of your post.

Show some evidence to back up those ridiculous claims...

I'm sorry, but I find words (and concepts) like "parasite" in reference to my reproductive processes to be much more disturbing than "child", and I doubt I'm alone in this. And no, I don't find it more appropriately descriptive to say the child "leaches" rather than "is nurtured".

If the Pro-Life side is discouraged, by rules of this debate, to use "child" because it is emotive, I think it only fair the Pro-Choice side should refrain from using terms that generate even more upsetting emotion in their opposition.

We can agree whole-heartedly on "murder", and that dispite its emotiveness it is key to this debate. However the terminology of what to call the offspring is not key. Can we at least search for a term that is not offensive to either side?

actually, we can't decide on murder. murder is a legal definition, so if abortion is legal, it ai'nt murder. Also, we haven't even decided whether a small clump of leeching parasitic (jk about leeching parasitic bit) cells is human. I don't think so. At that stage, those cells are I believe almsot identical to monkey children. So is a monkey having an abortion (doubt this has happened, but the point remains) a murder. If only a very highly trained scientist with a high powered microsscope could tell the diffrence is it there? (if there is one)
:confused:

Yes. It is no longer a matter of his consent, and the way you put it appears to me (apologies if you did not intend this) to suggest that the impregnation occured contrary to the SO's wishes.

It is terrible that a woman should be impregnated without her consent. And consent to sex does not equate to consent to impregnation, in this day and age (even if it ever did totally did).

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.

question for you, if pregnation was not the intent, why should the mother have to go through the pregnancy? I think you are saying the fathers opinions are more important than the mother's who has to HAVE the baby. Also many people on your side argue that the baby is part of the mother's body. At least some people have. (srry if you don't) So shouldn't the mother be able to decide what to do with her own body? i think so, but hey what the hell does my opinion matter for? I'm only 13.

Here is some evidence:
It is legal to get an abortion at 12 weeks, and by that time the baby's vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

Cite? Or am I expected to take your word for it? In rebuttal, please check this (http://my.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}) out. It is a non-biased timeline of the development of a fetus. The brain is not fully formed until between the 20th and 24th week.

There is your evidence. You are incorrect.

Rhetoric is not evidence. Cite or get off the pot.

The foetus cannot cry at twelve weeks, and the brain is not fully formed.

I cannot be bothered to even read the rest of your post.

Show some evidence to back up those ridiculous claims...

Show me some evidence that I am incorrect if you seek to baselessly label my claims as ridiculous. Study your biology and you will understand that the brain has reflex responses to stimuli and the baby does cry siliently and have the ability to feel pain. Whether or not you call that life is your personal choice, but it is my contention that this arbitrary line being drawn at 12 weeks by the government is not appropriate.

A woman shouldn't have the chance to abort a life, let alone ruin another adult's.

A collection of cells doesn't have the right to risk the life of another, or make demands on their health.

Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other she has the right without his consent to abort a fetus that he created, thus ending the life/potential life (however you choose to view it) without his consent. Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.

Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other or some random female, without her consent (to impregnation), she must be forced to risk her own life, health, psychological well-being, and social standing to cowtow to his wants without giving her own consent. Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.

Cite? Or am I expected to take your word for it? In rebuttal, please check this (http://my.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}) out. It is a non-biased timeline of the development of a fetus. The brain is not fully formed until between the 20th and 24th week.



Rhetoric is not evidence. Cite or get off the pot.


Sorry. This is my first thread, didn't know I could site. Actually, I read books and study biology at my college, which is where I get much of my info. But, in response, here is another independent website which backs my claims up: site (http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html)

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.

Like it or not, the man is taking on no risk to his life, health, or well-being in incubating the fetus. If he wants to have it, by all means, make a ruling where the zygote can be removed and implanted in a woman willing to incubate it. Or better yet, work on medicines/tech that will allow him to carry it. If that is not possible, he has no rights to force her to take risks he cannot take and she is unwilling to take.

Show me some evidence that I am incorrect if you seek to baselessly label my claims as ridiculous. Study your biology and you will understand that the brain has reflex responses to stimuli and the baby does cry siliently and have the ability to feel pain. Whether or not you call that life is your personal choice, but it is my contention that this arbitrary line being drawn at 12 weeks by the government is not appropriate.

psst....look one post up. The brain doesn't exist as a working organ until after the 20th week.

If you have evidence to the contrary, cite it, otherwise you are making ridiculous claims based on non-credible evidence.

Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other or some random female, without her consent (to impregnation), she must be forced to risk her own life, health, psychological well-being, and social standing to cowtow to his wants without giving her own consent. Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.


That is not what I am saying, you are taking my comments out of their original intent. To be rational, here is my problem. I do not feel that the man's opinion is more important than the woman's, I simply feel that both are important. If a "random female" is impregnated without her consent, that sounds to me like rape, and I personally feel different about abortions in that case. I am simply saying that if a man wishes to have a baby, he should have a say in whether or not a woman should be allowed to abort a fetus. And to the 13 year old, I respect your opinion, but I don't feel that the fetus is simply a part of the woman's body, I feel it is its own life. I don't seek to determine when it starts, but I also don't feel that the state should be able to either.

I forgot to add this.

I do think women should have a choice in cases of rape or when the woman's life is in danger. The woman didn't choose to have sex in the rape case and so i believe it is a neccessary evil to have. And I don't aqdvocate the mother's life being taken.

Here's a thought: Instead of killing the innocent baby in cases of rape, kill the rapist. That's a ridiculous arguement. The baby didn't do anything to deserve to have it's life snuffed out. There are millions of couples who wish to adopt, put the baby up for adoption.

Sorry. This is my first thread, didn't know I could site. Actually, I read books and study biology at my college, which is where I get much of my info. But, in response, here is another independent website which backs my claims up: site (http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html)

The cpc is not a credible, independant, or impartial website. It is a soapbox for 'pro-life' people to reiterate their own rhetoric over and over again. What college do you go to? Who publishes your biology books? If the source is biased, it can't be used as a cite.

psst....look one post up. The brain doesn't exist as a working organ until after the 20th week.

If you have evidence to the contrary, cite it, otherwise you are making ridiculous claims based on non-credible evidence.


Listen you femi-nazi, I cited it. Do some research besides surfing the net as well, you'll find that it is invigorating.

That is not what I am saying, you are taking my comments out of their original intent. To be rational, here is my problem. I do not feel that the man's opinion is more important than the woman's, I simply feel that both are important.

That isn't what you implied in your statement. You said that if the man wants it and the woman doesn't his vote trumps her's. True, I am saying that hers trumps his, but I am basing that on the fact that she is taking all the physical/health/psychological risks of the pregnancy and therefore gets final say in what/how/if it happens and not him.

If a "random female" is impregnated without her consent, that sounds to me like rape, and I personally feel different about abortions in that case.

As has been illustrated many time in this, and other threads, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

I am simply saying that if a man wishes to have a baby, he should have a say in whether or not a woman should be allowed to abort a fetus.

Certainly, he should be allowed to discuss it with her, provide her with alternatives, even request that it be removed to be implanted in a surrogate. He should most definately have a 'say'. He doesn't however have the right to force on her a risk she is ultimately unwilling to take. Her risk trumps his say.

Listen you femi-nazi, I cited it. Do some research besides surfing the net as well, you'll find that it is invigorating.

One, not female. Two, not a feminist. Three, I wrote that before I saw your cite. Five, your cite is worthless as it comes from a biased source. Six, that post was meant to be humourus, don't take things so seriously.

The cpc is not a credible, independant, or impartial website. It is a soapbox for 'pro-life' people to reiterate their own rhetoric over and over again. What college do you go to? Who publishes your biology books? If the source is biased, it can't be used as a cite.

My bio book is published by campbell, reece, and mitchell. and i go to holy cross. Just because people don't come to the same conclusions as you doesn't make them biased and uncredible.

One, not female. Two, not a feminist. Three, I wrote that before I saw your cite. Five, your cite is worthless as it comes from a biased source. Six, that post was meant to be humourus, don't take things so seriously.

one: 4 is a number

I have never fully understood the exceptions many pro-lifers have to their stand on abortion. So often I hear the anti-abortion line is UNLESS in the case of rape and incest. I don't see why those unborn are any less innocent then the unborn of the teenage girl who made a bad choice on prom night or the woman of ill reputation who just couldn't be bothered with pre-emtive birth control.

If it is a religious/philisophical/moral stand on innocence doesn't it have to be a catagorical imperative?

Grave,

To clarify, if we do function as unicellular beings, would it not be considered one stage of growth and develpment during our life cycle, at which point we would be alive?

Take Care,

-AP

Except that we don't. Human beings are not unicellular beings and cell division begins pretty much immediately at fertilization. The fetus does not then respond to stimuli *as an organism* until the nervous system is developed enough.

So what have we learned from the Peterson case? If the father wants to kill the unborn baby it's murder (it was two counts - mother and unborn child), but if the mother wants to, she's simply using her right to an abortion.

Also, when the woman wants to have an abortion, it's her baby...not the father's. Watch who's baby it becomes when someone needs to pay for it.

Laci Peterson's fetus was 8 months along and thus considered viable. She could not have had an abortion. Therefore, your example is bogus.

partial birth abortion anyone?

Which is not an elective procedure. What exactly is your point?

You just did, in your example. If the baby and mother would naturally die, and the mother chooses to abort she's choosing who lives and dies. If the baby and mother would naturally die and you choose to extract the baby (you don't say whether this would kill the mother or not) you are choosing who lives and who dies. :headbang:

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage. Only time i will condone an abortion is if the woman was raped by her father and the odds of her AND the baby dying at 99.9%, even then i would try to save the baby by a premature seisection and try and keep it alive with incubator and medical technology. Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.

And in addition, it is not only the woman who should have the freedom to do whatever she wants to "her body."

The fetus, as I have established, is its own body.

Of course, if it is not even an organism, it has no legal rights whatsoever.

Also, I do not know if you are innocently ignorant, but in order to have a baby, sometimes a father needs to be involved in a process called sex. And by practice, even if the father opposed the abortion and wanted to raise the child, the mother could get an abortion anyways. That is wrong, and a terrible thing to do to another human adult. That shouldn't be the simple perogative of one parent.

We don't allow slavery in this country. Thus, a man has no right to take over a woman's body to incubate a fetus that he wants. If he can find another way to bring it to term, fine and dandy.

There is a biological difference here which necessitates a difference in legal rights.

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.

So you would support the legalization of slavery?

Great logic. So if a man wants to have a baby and impregnates his significant other she has the right without his consent to abort a fetus that he created, thus ending the life/potential life (however you choose to view it) without his consent. Give me a break. That is absolutely terrible.
yes, she has the right to have the fetus removed from her body. he does not have the right to tell her she must incubate it, any more than she has the right to tell him that he must incubate it. when a man gets pregnant he will have the right to remove a fetus from his own body, but nobody (man or woman) has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot have done with their body.

to me, the suggestion that somebody else has the right to control my body is terrible. to me, the idea that a woman is slave to her reproductive organs is terrible. the claim that a male has the right to order a female to carry a fetus to term simply because he donated part of its genetic material is terrible. but allowing a human being to have sovereignty over his or her own body is anything but terrible...it is a fundamental human right.

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.
we're not talking about who owns the fetus, we are talking about who owns the female's body. she has the right to have the fetus removed from her whenever she chooses...if the man wants to keep the fetus after that, he is welcome to do so, but he is not welcome to force her to be an incubator against her will. it's a very basic right, one that all post-birth humans enjoy, so why are you so eager to take it away in favor of giving super-human rights to fetuses?

My bio book is published by campbell, reece, and mitchell. and i go to holy cross. Just because people don't come to the same conclusions as you doesn't make them biased and uncredible.

Don't recognize the publishing company, but I see from a google that some secular colleges are using it as course material, so I am willing to accept it as unbiased. Please quote from it where it says that 12week old embryos have fully formed and functioning brains as you claim it does. I bet dollars to donuts it aggrees with other non-biased biology sources which place that particular development after the 20th week.

You may or may not have come to your conclusions based on reasoned and well founded arguments, but you have yet to give an unbiased or credible cite. It is not their conclusions that make them so, it is their agenda. A 'pro-life' website is going to twist facts to better represent their viewpoint, in the same way that 'JohnKerry.com' isn't going to talk about any of the bad stuff he ever did.

one: 4 is a number

Nice catch. I will edit my posts better in the future.

As this is a charged issue I will put this in as brief terms as possible. I believe murder is wrong, I believe that once a baby begins to take form that it is alive, I also believe that it is human at this time, Killing a living human is murder and thus illegal and wrong. There is no justification for murdering someone to help the economy or population control. If Abortion is legal so should murder be. Because to me they are one and the same. There are instances where I can see it being necessary however, such as if the mother and child will both die from the birth.

Don't recognize the publishing company, but I see from a google that some secular colleges are using it as course material, so I am willing to accept it as unbiased.

From what I've seen, it's a decent book.

Please quote from it where it says that 12week old embryos have fully formed and functioning brains as you claim it does. I bet dollars to donuts it aggrees with other non-biased biology sources which place that particular development after the 20th week.

Most likely what it says is that the nervous system either is or is close to being developed enough at this point to induce movement and respond to stimuli (aka. the quickening). The resources I have seen would suggest that this is true.

However, this does not imply a "fully formed and functional" brain.

You may or may not have come to your conclusions based on reasoned and well founded arguments, but you have yet to give an unbiased or credible cite. It is not their conclusions that make them so, it is their agenda. A 'pro-life' website is going to twist facts to better represent their viewpoint, in the same way that 'JohnKerry.com' isn't going to talk about any of the bad stuff he ever did.

The particular website in question was also demonstrated as having out and out wrong information earlier in this thread or another much like it.

From what I've seen, it's a decent book.



Most likely what it says is that the nervous system either is or is close to being developed enough at this point to induce movement and respond to stimuli (aka. the quickening). The resources I have seen would suggest that this is true.

However, this does not imply a "fully formed and functional" brain.



The particular website in question was also demonstrated as having out and out wrong information earlier in this thread or another much like it.

There is no coherent response to stimuli at 12 weeks.

I have to suspect that this 'book' is refering to the fact that the tissue for the brain-mass is laid down by week 12.... which is not the same thing AT ALL as 'having a brain'... any more than planting a seed is the same as having a tree.

The first coherent responses to stimuli arrive around the 20th+ weeks, with the coherent formation of neural tissue.

There is no coherent response to stimuli at 12 weeks.

I have to suspect that this 'book' is refering to the fact that the tissue for the brain-mass is laid down by week 12.... which is not the same thing AT ALL as 'having a brain'... any more than planting a seed is the same as having a tree.

The first coherent responses to stimuli arrive around the 20th+ weeks, with the coherent formation of neural tissue.

Everything I have read has pointed to the idea that there is a nominal nervous system around the end of the first trimester. This is the reasoning behind the "quickening" that many lawbooks speak of.

A fully formed brain is not necessarily in simple reflexive response to stimuli.

Here's a thought: Instead of killing the innocent baby in cases of rape, kill the rapist. That's a ridiculous arguement. The baby didn't do anything to deserve to have it's life snuffed out. There are millions of couples who wish to adopt, put the baby up for adoption.

for god's sake do you think there are lines waiting for a child. No! they spend a lot of time in limbo waiing for someone to adopt them. Don't pretend otherwise.

Then how does one occur? The doctor elects to conduct the operation with or without consent?

(Just questioning Logic to get this back on the front page for thirty or so seconds)

yes.

Everything I have read has pointed to the idea that there is a nominal nervous system around the end of the first trimester. This is the reasoning behind the "quickening" that many lawbooks speak of.

A fully formed brain is not necessarily in simple reflexive response to stimuli.

indeed, but animals have nominal nervous systems (execpt jellyfish and some various other ones that don't come to mind, viruses aren't animals, wrong kingdom) until a fetus has a FULLY formed nervous system (third trimester i believe) it is not FULLY HUMAN. read my earlier monkey related argument. (it's up there somewhere.

Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.

Let me change your quote to the point of view of a pro-lifer


Every right is precious, its not our right to choose who has a child and dies or aborts and lives.

Pro-life isn't about killing babies, it just that the government shouldn't chose who gets to abort and who doesn't. Or if you get to abort. It's a personal choice. And techniclly the fetus doesn't have consiousness at most stages. Aborting it would be like sleeping and not waking.

Also, somtimes having a baby would kill a mother. Do you still think that abortion should be not legal?

*Bump*

indeed, but animals have nominal nervous systems (execpt jellyfish and some various other ones that don't come to mind, viruses aren't animals, wrong kingdom) until a fetus has a FULLY formed nervous system (third trimester i believe) it is not FULLY HUMAN. read my earlier monkey related argument. (it's up there somewhere.

I never claimed that it was. My contention has always been that a fetus is not an *organism* until it has developed enough of a nervous system to respond to stimuli as an organism - which would be around the end of the first trimester. At this point, we may afford it *some* rights, but not the full rights of a human being (which is basically what the law in most states does).

Once the nervous system is fully developed and the organism can exist outside the womb, it can be given human rights, but its rights should still not trump those of the mother. (In other words, if the mother's life is in danger, she should have access to abortion).

I never claimed that it was. My contention has always been that a fetus is not an *organism* until it has developed enough of a nervous system to respond to stimuli as an organism - which would be around the end of the first trimester. At this point, we may afford it *some* rights, but not the full rights of a human being (which is basically what the law in most states does).

Once the nervous system is fully developed and the organism can exist outside the womb, it can be given human rights, but its rights should still not trump those of the mother. (In other words, if the mother's life is in danger, she should have access to abortion).

sorry my bad. I'm an pro-choicer who doesn't like abortion, but doesn't believe i should choose for em. Even though i don't think a fetus is human until it is fully developed i don't think it should be killed. It is kinda funny, i'm 13 and no oe but like 4 other people at my school would have any idea what i am talking aobut. Ahhh... the life of a smart student is odd.

It is kinda funny, i'm 13 and no oe but like 4 other people at my school would have any idea what i am talking aobut.

I was the same way at your age. Don't let people talk down to you because of your age. The fact of the matter is, that people only try to discreadit you with your age because they can't touch or understand your arguement. Keep posting!!!

sorry my bad. I'm an pro-choicer who doesn't like abortion, but doesn't believe i should choose for em. Even though i don't think a fetus is human until it is fully developed i don't think it should be killed. It is kinda funny, i'm 13 and no oe but like 4 other people at my school would have any idea what i am talking aobut. Ahhh... the life of a smart student is odd.

Yeah, I've been there. As a 13-year old, I was trying to explain to people who hadn't even begun to think for themselves how pro-choice did not mean pro-abortion.

Continue on your own track, don't worry about whether or not you meet the "norm".

The problem with all pro-life arguments is simple: There's too many people, not enough resources.

The result of unfettered human population growth is mass starvation, increased religious strife, war and death. So by outlawing forms of population control including abortion, you cause more death, more suffering, and more chaos in the world.

How is it better for a child to be born into a life of pure suffering only to starve to death at a young age? Wouldn't it be better for that same child to be spared a short life of misery with a merciful abortion?

If life is truly sacred, than it is our duty to prevent unnecesary suffering and death. The only way to accomplish this is to keep the human population in check so that we have enough resources to provide for everyone. This means birth control, the promotion of abstinence, and abortion.








Oh, and by the way, any argument that a fetus isn't human until a certain stage is bunk.

As technology progresses, fetuses become viable earlier and earlier. If one day it's possible to form a fetus and grow it into a baby in a laboroatory, does that mean that all the 1st and second trimester abortions performed to date were murders?

100 years ago babies weren't viable until the instant they were born, so would 3rd trimester abortions have not been murder then, but they are today simply because technology allows us to incubate a premature 3rd trimester baby allowing it to live?

Why should advances in technology be the determining factor as to whether or not a fetus is human?

The result of unfettered human population growth is mass starvation, increased religious strife, war and death. So by outlawing forms of population control including abortion, you cause more death, more suffering, and more chaos in the world.

haha... you read too much malthus... k I'll be leaving now

Ok, done with papers and tests for two weeks.

Grave and Pith,

If either one of you would mind analyzing my analyses of a life cycle and its implications that would be greatly appreciated.

I am trying to go through the posts and see if I missed any, to find out if this post is unecessary nagging. The debate appears to have digressed for a little while. Let's see if we can pick it back up.

-AP

I never claimed that it was. My contention has always been that a fetus is not an *organism* until it has developed enough of a nervous system to respond to stimuli as an organism - which would be around the end of the first trimester. At this point, we may afford it *some* rights, but not the full rights of a human being (which is basically what the law in most states does).

Once the nervous system is fully developed and the organism can exist outside the womb, it can be given human rights, but its rights should still not trump those of the mother. (In other words, if the mother's life is in danger, she should have access to abortion).

This is about on par with my particular stance, though I feel that in addition, women who wish to have an abortion between the end of the first trimester and when the fetus is viable should still be allowed to have it removed. However, in these cases an attempt should be made to preserve the fetus if that is possible. This is the extent of compromise I am willing to go with the 'pro-life' side, as it shows respect for the potential of life without forcing pregnent women into slavery for their unwanted children.

This is about on par with my particular stance, though I feel that in addition, women who wish to have an abortion between the end of the first trimester and when the fetus is viable should still be allowed to have it removed. However, in these cases an attempt should be made to preserve the fetus if that is possible. This is the extent of compromise I am willing to go with the 'pro-life' side, as it shows respect for the potential of life without forcing pregnent women into slavery for their unwanted children.

I'm not sure how that would be accomplished, but I would agree. That would be a good compromise, provided the life of the baby had a good chance of survival. If this process would give the baby something like a 25% survival rate, I wouldn't see it as an acceptable solution. Something like that would be a mockery of what pro-lifers stand for.

sorry my bad. I'm an pro-choicer who doesn't like abortion, but doesn't believe i should choose for em. Even though i don't think a fetus is human until it is fully developed i don't think it should be killed. It is kinda funny, i'm 13 and no oe but like 4 other people at my school would have any idea what i am talking aobut. Ahhh... the life of a smart student is odd.

It gets even though. If you can visualize your ideas and find yourself carrying on your own conversations when one comes to you-don't worry. It doesn't mean your crazy-and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Found that out in life later than I should have, and pass it on to you just in case you find yourself in a similar situation.

The problem with all pro-life arguments is simple: There's too many people, not enough resources.

The result of unfettered human population growth is mass starvation, increased religious strife, war and death. So by outlawing forms of population control including abortion, you cause more death, more suffering, and more chaos in the world.

How is it better for a child to be born into a life of pure suffering only to starve to death at a young age? Wouldn't it be better for that same child to be spared a short life of misery with a merciful abortion?

If life is truly sacred, than it is our duty to prevent unnecesary suffering and death. The only way to accomplish this is to keep the human population in check so that we have enough resources to provide for everyone. This means birth control, the promotion of abstinence, and abortion.








Oh, and by the way, any argument that a fetus isn't human until a certain stage is bunk.

As technology progresses, fetuses become viable earlier and earlier. If one day it's possible to form a fetus and grow it into a baby in a laboroatory, does that mean that all the 1st and second trimester abortions performed to date were murders?

100 years ago babies weren't viable until the instant they were born, so would 3rd trimester abortions have not been murder then, but they are today simply because technology allows us to incubate a premature 3rd trimester baby allowing it to live?

Why should advances in technology be the determining factor as to whether or not a fetus is human?

Excellent... you don't even realise what you have said there, do you?

Once a foetus can be entirely gestated in the laboratory, there will be no more 'abortion', will there?

You'll just go to the doctor and have him take the foetus and put it in a jar, and a couple who WANT a baby can come pick it up... simple.

(Side note: why does the anti-abortion side have such a hazy understanding of words like 'murder'?)

Ok, done with papers and tests for two weeks.

Grave and Pith,

If either one of you would mind analyzing my analyses of a life cycle and its implications that would be greatly appreciated.

I am trying to go through the posts and see if I missed any, to find out if this post is unecessary nagging. The debate appears to have digressed for a little while. Let's see if we can pick it back up.

-AP

I can't argue with your legal arguments. I don't have the tools available to me.

In regards to the life-cycle one, forgive me if I have read you wrong, but I believe your contention is that something is a member of it's species throughout its life-cycle and is theirfore a living organism from conception until death (because at some point in its cycle it will meet the criteria for same).

This is, I believe, a valid argument for calling the blastocyst 'alive' despite its lack of all the characteristics for life. It seems perfectly logical anyway, and I will stop arguing against it (at least, to you and anyone else capable of presenting a logical argument).

However, I still believe that destroying a blastocyst (or any stage of the conceptus (I really like that word, but can't remember who first used it)), is not the same as killing a human, in the same way that I cannot logically see how grinding an appleseed into paste is the same as chopping down an apple tree. In this way, even though I agree that the blastocyst may be considered to be alive by your criteria, and it has the DNA of a human, I don't feel that ending it is the same as ending a human life. And I certainly don't feel that it is even in the same sport as the murder of a human being.

I say this, because I consider the definition of 'human' and 'human being' and 'human life' to be about much more than having human DNA. Every philosophy and every religion in history (yes, including the Judeo-Christian ones) have considered the qualities of being human more than a matter of tissue. Words like 'thinking', 'feeling', 'perceiving', 'breathing', 'sapient', and 'aware' have all been included in those qualities, and a fetus pre-~20th week does not possess them or have the organs develloped that are necessary to possess them (except in potentia).

If you can honestly say that you feel that an apple is the same thing as an apple tree, or that a chicken egg is the same thing as a rooster, and that it is okay for us to treat them as such and apply the same rules to them in all cases (such as using an axe to cut an apple, or leaving feed out for your egg), then I will have to respectfully aggree to disagree with you, as I cannot ever bring myself to that conclusion.

Ok, done with papers and tests for two weeks.

Grave and Pith,

If either one of you would mind analyzing my analyses of a life cycle and its implications that would be greatly appreciated.

I am trying to go through the posts and see if I missed any, to find out if this post is unecessary nagging. The debate appears to have digressed for a little while. Let's see if we can pick it back up.

-AP

I think we've hit all the points of your analyses, haven't we?

If you can think of something you think we've missed, raise a flag, and I'll see what I can do.

I'm not sure how that would be accomplished, but I would agree. That would be a good compromise, provided the life of the baby had a good chance of survival. If this process would give the baby something like a 25% survival rate, I wouldn't see it as an acceptable solution. Something like that would be a mockery of what pro-lifers stand for.

I don't think it could be accomplished today. But I believe it's possible with a few minor leaps in technology. Of course, it would require study and funding, which won't happen as long as the current administration and their Christian Coalition base are in charge. But I digress.

I don't think it could be accomplished today. But I believe it's possible with a few minor leaps in technology. Of course, it would require study and funding, which won't happen as long as the current administration and their Christian Coalition base are in charge. But I digress.

Eh. Scientific progress will continue nevertheless. Until then the debate rages on.

I can't argue with your legal arguments. I don't have the tools available to me.

In regards to the life-cycle one, forgive me if I have read you wrong, but I believe your contention is that something is a member of it's species throughout its life-cycle and is theirfore a living organism from conception until death (because at some point in its cycle it will meet the criteria for same).

This is, I believe, a valid argument for calling the blastocyst 'alive' despite its lack of all the characteristics for life. It seems perfectly logical anyway, and I will stop arguing against it (at least, to you and anyone else capable of presenting a logical argument).

However, I still believe that destroying a blastocyst (or any stage of the conceptus (I really like that word, but can't remember who first used it)), is not the same as killing a human, in the same way that I cannot logically see how grinding an appleseed into paste is the same as chopping down an apple tree. In this way, even though I agree that the blastocyst may be considered to be alive by your criteria, and it has the DNA of a human, I don't feel that ending it is the same as ending a human life. And I certainly don't feel that it is even in the same sport as the murder of a human being.

I say this, because I consider the definition of 'human' and 'human being' and 'human life' to be about much more than having human DNA. Every philosophy and every religion in history (yes, including the Judeo-Christian ones) have considered the qualities of being human more than a matter of tissue. Words like 'thinking', 'feeling', 'perceiving', 'breathing', 'sapient', and 'aware' have all been included in those qualities, and a fetus pre-~20th week does not possess them or have the organs develloped that are necessary to possess them (except in potentia).

If you can honestly say that you feel that an apple is the same thing as an apple tree, or that a chicken egg is the same thing as a rooster, and that it is okay for us to treat them as such and apply the same rules to them in all cases (such as using an axe to cut an apple, or leaving feed out for your egg), then I will have to respectfully aggree to disagree with you, as I cannot ever bring myself to that conclusion.

I think I'm agreeing with Pithica here...

Even if you contend that the conceptus has the attribute of 'life', purely because it isn't inanimate matter... is that life 'life' as we understand it? As a legal concept? Is it a human life?

I argue that there is a big difference between the animation of the conceptus cell(s), and the better qualification for 'life' that arrives in the 20-24 week period... and would argue further, that the conceptus lacks sophistication to be termed a 'human life'... and, therefore, 'life', as a 'human organism'.

I think we need another term to describe the animate nature of sperm, ova and conceptus... since I think using the term 'life' for any of them is a misnomer.

Eh. Scientific progress will continue nevertheless. Until then the debate rages on.

Brave assumption, but mostly insupportable.

Hundreds of years of scientific stagnation argue against the scientifc progress under the Christian regime, if it gains the sort of power (it would like to have) it had just a few centuries back.

The only reason we have a grounding in anatomy or medicine, now, is because we imported that knowledge from the middle-east.

Brave assumption, but mostly insupportable.

Hundreds of years of scientific stagnation argue against the scientifc progress under the Christian regime, if it gains the sort of power (it would like to have) it had just a few centuries back.

The only reason we have a grounding in anatomy or medicine, now, is because we imported that knowledge from the middle-east.

I have every confidence that the Christian regime will never gain that much power all over the world.

I have every confidence that the Christian regime will never gain that much power all over the world.

I lack that confidence... but I do hope you are right... :(

I lack that confidence... but I do hope you are right... :(

Eh, it doesn't seem that weird to me. Religion's no longer the opium of the masses - science is. Atheism's on the rise. The Catholic Church (at least in America) is getting smaller every year. I find it hard to believe that Christians will remain the dominant political force in the world.

For the record, even as a Catholic, I find this a good thing. I dare to say the smaller the Church is, the better.

I think you misunderstood my message, which is understandable considering the fact that we are debating online. I meant that if a woman consents to sex and gets pregnant, regardless of her or her partners wishes, if the man wishes to raise the child the woman can act independently and decide to abort the fetus. I don't like that policy. It is not simply her creation, particularly if the man wishes to have a child.I may have slightly misunderstood, but we're back to the point whereby when a man can take the foetus home with him in a jar (or attached to his own internal organs) and let it develop into a child, then he may be entitled to the rights to 'prenatally adopt' the foetus.

As a man I would not presume to force a women to undergo 9 months of child-bearing against her express wishes. There is a point in that nine months beyond which, for the sake of the increasingly 'person-like' child, I would probably say "Ok, you've had your chance to have second thoughts about this pregnancy, I'm afraid you're committed to the pregnancy", and yet I realise that even /this/ is unfair on the mother and requires a whole bunch of extra caveats regarding medical/psychological health of mother and child. Certainly before that cut-off, however, the mother certainly ought to have full rights.

She is the one who CHOSE to take the risk of becoming pregnant!

And of course, it's completely the woman's fault, right?

If "compulsory fatherhood" were a possibility, none of you would even be arguing at this point. If the man had to play an active part in the pregnancy and child-rearing -- and have his wages involuntarily garnished until the child reached age 18 -- all you men would be pro-choice advocates.

Eh, it doesn't seem that weird to me. Religion's no longer the opium of the masses - science is. Atheism's on the rise. The Catholic Church (at least in America) is getting smaller every year. I find it hard to believe that Christians will remain the dominant political force in the world.

For the record, even as a Catholic, I find this a good thing. I dare to say the smaller the Church is, the better.

You should take a trip down to the south at some point. I would like to say that religion is losing its grip, but the evidence around me doesn't support this. People here seem to be getting more dogmatic and hypocritical by the hour.

Here is some evidence:
It is legal to get an abortion at 12 weeks, and by that time the baby's vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

You mean to suggest that the state has the has the right to determine that life begins at 12 weeks? That my friend is that definition of an arbitrary, baseless, and ridiculous claim.

In addition, abortion being federally legal was the decision of an activist bench who imposed their own social agenda unconstitutionally by over-extending a clause that was not meant to be applied the way it was, as part of the 9th ammendment.

There is your evidence. You are incorrect.

... how does something 'cry silently'? If you mean that the vocal cords spasm, that is not 'crying', that is an unconscious action, like the twitch some people get under their eyes when they have to deal with idiotic rhetoric and misinformation over and over again.

The brain is NOT fully formed at 12 weeks. It forms between 20 and 24 weeks, which is why that is the cut off date for ELECTIVE abortions.

Sorry. This is my first thread, didn't know I could site. Actually, I read books and study biology at my college, which is where I get much of my info. But, in response, here is another independent website which backs my claims up: site (http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html)

""Life is present from the moment of conception.""
""A person's a person, no matter how small!""

BIASE ALERT.

'Independant' my arse.

Many of the 'sources' and 'related links' are pro-life. We've also already seen this site in this debate before, and determined it is not unbiased.

I also object to the moronic phrase 'cries silently'. That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. Nice to see you're on top of you're copy-paste skills though :rolleyes:

'Independant' my arse.


:D

I hate the arguement "you could be killing the next president of the united states, or someone who cures cancer". Because you could also be killing the next Saddam, or your worst enemy, or a killer or rapist, the door swings two ways idiots.

Added to that if a woman cant support her child (ie single mothers, underage mothers ect) she should have every right to abort that baby, why should she screw up both her life and that of her child? Im not saying I agree with abortion, but Im saying if there is reason for it it should be allowed.

Nobody has addressed this point just yet, so...
As technology progresses, fetuses become viable earlier and earlier. If one day it's possible to form a fetus and grow it into a baby in a laboroatory, does that mean that all the 1st and second trimester abortions performed to date were murders?No more than doctors of a 100+ years ago were guilty of malpractice for not (edit: by our standards) using adequately steralised equipment and anaesthetic during operations. In fact, no more than a field medic these days might be blamed for any loss of life arising from such insanitary operating conditions and problems as are inherant in whatever situation he finds himself having to operate, when compared to the ultra-hygenic conditions of a contemporary hospital's operating theatre where no such complications would have arisen.

The brain is NOT fully formed at 12 weeks. It forms between 20 and 24 weeks, which is why that is the cut off date for ELECTIVE abortions.

Not to correct you, because this may be true in your state, or may be that you meant it 'should' be this way, but in my state elective abortions are only available up until the 12th week. From the 13th to the 26th they can only be performed under special circumstances (rape, life, incest, etc) or in a court adjuticated circumstance. Anything beyond the 26th week, and the mother's life has to be severely at risk, the baby has to already be dead (or dying), or very rarely in other severe circumstances as adjuticated by the courts. Further, if the fetus is deemed viable, they remove it via C-Section rather than abort.

I know you don't think this, but a lot of our less scrupulous 'pro-lifers' seem to repeat over and over a situation that is untrue: that abortions can be had anywhere in america up until the day of birth.

The problem with all pro-life arguments is simple: There's too many people, not enough resources.

The result of unfettered human population growth is mass starvation, increased religious strife, war and death. So by outlawing forms of population control including abortion, you cause more death, more suffering, and more chaos in the world.

How is it better for a child to be born into a life of pure suffering only to starve to death at a young age? Wouldn't it be better for that same child to be spared a short life of misery with a merciful abortion?

If life is truly sacred, than it is our duty to prevent unnecesary suffering and death. The only way to accomplish this is to keep the human population in check so that we have enough resources to provide for everyone. This means birth control, the promotion of abstinence, and abortion.








Oh, and by the way, any argument that a fetus isn't human until a certain stage is bunk.

As technology progresses, fetuses become viable earlier and earlier. If one day it's possible to form a fetus and grow it into a baby in a laboroatory, does that mean that all the 1st and second trimester abortions performed to date were murders?

100 years ago babies weren't viable until the instant they were born, so would 3rd trimester abortions have not been murder then, but they are today simply because technology allows us to incubate a premature 3rd trimester baby allowing it to live?

Why should advances in technology be the determining factor as to whether or not a fetus is human?

well possibility does not equal actuality. So if it is possible to do something that does not mean it will happen. Alsoi regard fetesus as animals until the brain is fully formed. Once it hs reached that point it can't under law be killed. (i think in the third trimester or 20th week or something is when it usualy happens.) I don't like the idea of animals being killed either for no reason,(i hunt and fish so it's a bit of hypocricy to some people, but i regard consumption as a viable use.) but a human is worth more than an animal. (including there choices are worth more than a life. (a life not 5000 u stupid buisiness executives lol.)

Brave assumption, but mostly insupportable.

Hundreds of years of scientific stagnation argue against the scientifc progress under the Christian regime, if it gains the sort of power (it would like to have) it had just a few centuries back.

The only reason we have a grounding in anatomy or medicine, now, is because we imported that knowledge from the middle-east.

yes, although i hate to admit it as a christian, christians tend to (not all do myself for example, but i'm not a strong believer.) keep things the way they are or move backwards. under Bush we are progressing steadily backwards. (historically speaking.) Or like Galileo who was put under house arrest for daring to say the universe does not hover around the earth. When he offered the pope the telescope to see for himself, the pope said he would not use an evil device. (or something to that extent.) Although from a religious perspective i would like all people believers (i'm not a missionary converter type don't worry just philosiphizing here) from a practical perspective that would be bad. VERY BAD.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Mark Twain if i remember correctly

If this is what you believe, then why not have your uterus and/or ovaries totally removed? Then you don't have to worry about killing something because you didn't want to use some kind of contraceptive.

1. i'm pretty sure most people do use some form of contraceptives, and often when contraceptives aren't used, it wasn't the woman's idea not to use them. it takes two to tango.
2. removing the ovaries would plunge someone into early menopause. not a good thing at all.

Having sex is a health threat. Do you know for certain that your partner is clean?

because you don't fuck everything that moves, duh.

it's called getting to know someone before you exchange bodily fluids.

Absolutely, she should have that right, but only if it's her body. Let her remove her uterus or ovaries if she does not want to have babies.
again, you're advocating somethign taht brings on health risks to negate another health risk.

If she cannot handle the idea of giving birth, she should not engage in activities that could result in having to give birth.

yes, it's always the woman's fault. that's right, men are perfect, what was i thinking?

Eh, it doesn't seem that weird to me. Religion's no longer the opium of the masses - science is. Atheism's on the rise. The Catholic Church (at least in America) is getting smaller every year. I find it hard to believe that Christians will remain the dominant political force in the world.

For the record, even as a Catholic, I find this a good thing. I dare to say the smaller the Church is, the better.

I have nothing, personally, against religion... I just don't think that something as... subjective... as religion should be the force governing societies and their interactions.

I am quite happy for people to continue being religious (see, there IS no atheist world-agenda!!! :)) so long as they do it for themselves, not as a method of control.

yes, although i hate to admit it as a christian, christians tend to (not all do myself for example, but i'm not a strong believer.) keep things the way they are or move backwards. under Bush we are progressing steadily backwards. (historically speaking.) Or like Galileo who was put under house arrest for daring to say the universe does not hover around the earth. When he offered the pope the telescope to see for himself, the pope said he would not use an evil device. (or something to that extent.) Although from a religious perspective i would like all people believers (i'm not a missionary converter type don't worry just philosiphizing here) from a practical perspective that would be bad. VERY BAD.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Mark Twain if i remember correctly

Quite so... and add to it the fact that systems which do not change, stagnate. Diversity is a GOOD thing, it is the stirring motion that keeps things from decaying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pithica
I can't argue with your legal arguments. I don't have the tools available to me.

In regards to the life-cycle one, forgive me if I have read you wrong, but I believe your contention is that something is a member of it's species throughout its life-cycle and is theirfore a living organism from conception until death (because at some point in its cycle it will meet the criteria for same).

This is, I believe, a valid argument for calling the blastocyst 'alive' despite its lack of all the characteristics for life. It seems perfectly logical anyway, and I will stop arguing against it (at least, to you and anyone else capable of presenting a logical argument).

However, I still believe that destroying a blastocyst (or any stage of the conceptus (I really like that word, but can't remember who first used it)), is not the same as killing a human, in the same way that I cannot logically see how grinding an appleseed into paste is the same as chopping down an apple tree. In this way, even though I agree that the blastocyst may be considered to be alive by your criteria, and it has the DNA of a human, I don't feel that ending it is the same as ending a human life. And I certainly don't feel that it is even in the same sport as the murder of a human being.

I say this, because I consider the definition of 'human' and 'human being' and 'human life' to be about much more than having human DNA. Every philosophy and every religion in history (yes, including the Judeo-Christian ones) have considered the qualities of being human more than a matter of tissue. Words like 'thinking', 'feeling', 'perceiving', 'breathing', 'sapient', and 'aware' have all been included in those qualities, and a fetus pre-~20th week does not possess them or have the organs develloped that are necessary to possess them (except in potentia).

If you can honestly say that you feel that an apple is the same thing as an apple tree, or that a chicken egg is the same thing as a rooster, and that it is okay for us to treat them as such and apply the same rules to them in all cases (such as using an axe to cut an apple, or leaving feed out for your egg), then I will have to respectfully aggree to disagree with you, as I cannot ever bring myself to that conclusion.



I think I'm agreeing with Pithica here...

Even if you contend that the conceptus has the attribute of 'life', purely because it isn't inanimate matter... is that life 'life' as we understand it? As a legal concept? Is it a human life?

I argue that there is a big difference between the animation of the conceptus cell(s), and the better qualification for 'life' that arrives in the 20-24 week period... and would argue further, that the conceptus lacks sophistication to be termed a 'human life'... and, therefore, 'life', as a 'human organism'.

I think we need another term to describe the animate nature of sperm, ova and conceptus... since I think using the term 'life' for any of them is a misnomer.

Thank you, to both you.

With respect to a chicken and an egg. It depends on whether or not a life cycle begins. Not all chicken eggs are fertilized developing chickens, nor is an apple a developing apple tree, as it has not come into contact with an environment that allows for its growth.

You are both correct in my logic, but now I would like you to look at my direction...(which I am still working on, as it leaves biology and enters more into morality and legality... of which I would not be surprised if you agree with in part... but feel it is not a good one to head in... this is also where I cross the line and am disliked by more religeous counterparts)

Following the definition, if all the qualifications are met, then a single self replicating cell constituting one stage of growth and development towards becoming a complex organism, would constitute a stage of the life cycle of the organism, and that organism would be considered alive.

Now for controversy...

However, when fertilization occurs, when a conceptus comes into being, and when the zygote implants, are indeterminate for a period of time, if it occurs at all. This lack of knowledge as to what actually occurs after copulation, a point of time during which a woman and her partner are without knowledge, is not where a duty of care eminates.

That period of time after copulation, consensual or not (still inwardly debating this as it is not the developing organisms fault this occurred), with the intent of pregnancy or not, is a period where no affirmative act has been taken, thus no duty is owed. Therefore, a woman is free during that period of time use contraceptives that elliminate the plausibility of fertilization or implantation (force a cycle-which is possible, or what have you). Methods which are less dangerous to mother than surgery.

However, when no action is taken, implantation occurs, and we reach a time where a reasonable person would know or should know that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant, and inquires into an abortion, and discovers she is pregnant, it is to late. By not taking the available (will only invoke this line of thought if the afforementioned procedures become available) precautions, and allowing the pregnancy to reach that point, she has committed an affirmative act. Her actions constitute a promise to allow another life form to go through its life cycle, and that promise is detrimental to it. Thus a duty of care has been created. A duty of care is not the same as a right, it is an observance and promise not to act such that you harm another being regarldless of sentience or stage of develpment when it is undertaken, as in our duty to care for endangered species, pets, and so forth)

Will stop there for now...

Again, please read and critique liberally

Take care,

-AP

I personally draw a philosophical distinction between a human being and a person. Philosophically, I consider something to be human at all stages of development, fetus, child, mentally deficient, middle-aged, old, and the like. However not all of the afforementioned stages of development, despite being fully formed and developed would constitute a person to me. That depends on their neurological capabilities for thought, abstract and concrete. A child and other living human beings do not meet my criteria for a person, nor those described by Pithica above, and are owed a duty of care so long as they are not a threat to the lives of others.

So a human being depends on genetics and life cycle to me.
Personhood and rights, however, do not.

I have nothing, personally, against religion... I just don't think that something as... subjective... as religion should be the force governing societies and their interactions.

I am quite happy for people to continue being religious (see, there IS no atheist world-agenda!!! :)) so long as they do it for themselves, not as a method of control.

What's wrong with being agnostic. The laws of physics break down when trying to explain the universe, if you read the old and new testament; Jesus taught everyone, including his father, the value of forgiveness (prior to this humans were wiped off the face of the planet for reasons that Jesus would not find justified) so it is hard to believe in an omniscient spritiual being, and Budhism implies reincarnation as other beings as though you would be conscious, which is unlikely given that most other beings on the planet are without consciousness.

So, to think any option is inwardly consistent, and envolopes the other is a fallacy in judgment. Yes, science is a way of explaining the phenomena we observe, but no matter how much we know we can not prove or disprove spirituality. And, spirituality can not claim to be the unobservable force behind how all came into being if it can not fully explain itself. Its almost a circular paradox, both trying to explain the other, both not able to, awkward enough, like nearly everything else in life. :)

Albert Einstein illustrated this perfectly: "mathematics is the alphabet with which god wrote the universe."

Mathematics is just the code by which you explain how something is possible, fool. Numbers can be the alphabet for anything, and often they are.

Calling Albert Einstein a fool, interesting.
That answer was to a question concerning his faith as a physicist.
As he, being a physicist, explained the world in a way that did not fit with spirituality.

So, you got part of the point...
You, understand why I used the comment.
Congratulations, your cookie is in the mail.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]I have nothing, personally, against religion... I just don't think that something as... subjective... as religion should be the force governing societies and their interactions.

Guiding not governing, guiding.


I am quite happy for people to continue being religious (see, there IS no atheist world-agenda!!! :)) so long as they do it for themselves, not as a method of control.

Wow!!! You are not against people being religous, so that means there

is no atheist world agenda, guess what Grave, you are not the world.

What's wrong with being agnostic. The laws of physics break down when trying to explain the universe, if you read the old and new testament; Jesus taught everyone, including his father, the value of forgiveness (prior to this humans were wiped off the face of the planet for reasons that Jesus would not find justified) so it is hard to believe in an omniscient spritiual being, and Budhism implies reincarnation as other beings as though you would be conscious, which is unlikely given that most other beings on the planet are without consciousness.

So, to think any option is inwardly consistent, and envolopes the other is a fallacy in judgment. Yes, science is a way of explaining the phenomena we observe, but no matter how much we know we can not prove or disprove spirituality. And, spirituality can not claim to be the unobservable force behind how all came into being if it can not fully explain itself. Its almost a circular paradox, both trying to explain the other, both not able to, awkward enough, like nearly everything else in life. :)

Albert Einstein illustrated this perfectly: "mathematics is the alphabet with which god wrote the universe."

And there is nothing wrong with that.... spirituality DOES answer a lot of questions... but it must, by it's very nature, be a subjective experience.

As I have said, I am all for absolute freedom of religion, but, implicit in that, there must be a freedom FROM religion, also.

Why can christians in america make religious decisions that direct the legal lives of Mormons, Muslims and Atheists?

I didn't say that science is the answer (although I would perhaps argue in it's favour)... but it is the only UNIVERSAL, or objective approach.

You drop an apple, it falls to the ground... it doesn't matter if you are a Jew, a Hindu or a martian (except, the martian might not know what an apple was, and might be referring to a different ground...)

Thank you, to both you.

With respect to a chicken and an egg. It depends on whether or not a life cycle begins. Not all chicken eggs are fertilized developing chickens, nor is an apple a developing apple tree, as it has not come into contact with an environment that allows for its growth.

You are both correct in my logic, but now I would like you to look at my direction...(which I am still working on, as it leaves biology and enters more into morality and legality... of which I would not be surprised if you agree with in part... but feel it is not a good one to head in... this is also where I cross the line and am disliked by more religeous counterparts)

Following the definition, if all the qualifications are met, then a single self replicating cell constituting one stage of growth and development towards becoming a complex organism, would constitute a stage of the life cycle of the organism, and that organism would be considered alive.

Now for controversy...

However, when fertilization occurs, when a conceptus comes into being, and when the zygote implants, are indeterminate for a period of time, if it occurs at all. This lack of knowledge as to what actually occurs after copulation, a point of time during which a woman and her partner are without knowledge, is not where a duty of care eminates.

That period of time after copulation, consensual or not (still inwardly debating this as it is not the developing organisms fault this occurred), with the intent of pregnancy or not, is a period where no affirmative act has been taken, thus no duty is owed. Therefore, a woman is free during that period of time use contraceptives that elliminate the plausibility of fertilization or implantation (force a cycle-which is possible, or what have you). Methods which are less dangerous to mother than surgery.

However, when no action is taken, implantation occurs, and we reach a time where a reasonable person would know or should know that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant, and inquires into an abortion, and discovers she is pregnant, it is to late. By not taking the available (will only invoke this line of thought if the afforementioned procedures become available) precautions, and allowing the pregnancy to reach that point, she has committed an affirmative act. Her actions constitute a promise to allow another life form to go through its life cycle, and that promise is detrimental to it. Thus a duty of care has been created. A duty of care is not the same as a right, it is an observance and promise not to act such that you harm another being regarldless of sentience or stage of develpment when it is undertaken, as in our duty to care for endangered species, pets, and so forth)

Will stop there for now...

Again, please read and critique liberally

Take care,

-AP

I agree with your 'legal' idea, that there can be no 'duty of care' before awareness of the foetus is gained... but I have a little disagreement over the implications you entail when the pregnancy is discovered... if the woman already wants an abortion when she goes to the clinic, she has made the decision before her 'duty of care' begins.... for the clinic to then tell her she IS pregnant, they remove her privilige of the 'duty' amnesty state that ignorance provided... but her decision was ALREADY made...

The only moral/legal way through that maze, that I can see, would be for the clinic to perform an 'abortion' WITHOUT informing the woman she was pregnant... which opens up a whole different can of legal worms.

The Pro-Life movement has been made out to look like some sort of religious right movement.

When in fact, the Pro-Life arguments have very little (or in my case nothing) to do with religion.

I would consider myself an athiest, even. The problem I have with abortion is that I feel there is no real situation where a woman needs an abortion.

For a while I insisted that when the woman's health was in danger she should most certainly be entitled to an abortion.

I later found out that the 'woman's health' argument was in actuallity a smokescreen developed by the Pro-Choice movement.

And when you think about the idea, you can see how ridiculous it actually is.

"Ms. Smith you're pregnant and there are some serious complications, you'll need to have an abortion. Just drop by Planned Parenthood and they'll do it for you."

Heh, if a woman has serious complications that need to be addressed she will not be given an abortion - abortions are (cringes) messy. They're not supposed to be used as a medical procedure to save a woman's life.

The woman will be operated on and in many cases she will be saved but the child will not.

So you can see that even if abortion was made illegal this wouldn't be an issue.

In cases of rape, I can certainly certainly sympathize but I cannot condone abortion.

Just as in cases where a loved one is murdered, I can sympathise but I cannot condone the death penalty.

Simply because I do not think (that in both cases) anything really is resolved.

The raped woman can put the child up for adoption and go on with her life as if she had an abortion - and she doesn't have to feel depressed or upset afterwards as she would most probably feel if she had an abortion.

And keep in mind that less than 1% of all abortion cases are that of 'rape'.

Also, 1/3 of our generation has been wasted by abortion - 1/3 - that's more than 40 million abortions! With 95% of those being cases of 'birth control'.

That's right, 95% of all abortion cases are that of 'birth control' - people being irresponsible.

So 95%, a vast majority of these cases - cannot be excused.

Now, I've seen a lot of analogies - comparing the preborn human to that of a chicken.

First of all, anyone who puts barnyard chickens (cluck cluck) on the level of human beings - really is not someone I feel is intelligent enough to debate with me about abortion to begin with.

And if the analogy is made because the preborn child can do very little - as a chicken. Still, I find this to be appaling.

It's a sort of hierarchy, and following that logic an NBA basketball star's life is much more important than mine because I am just a High School student.

I refuse to believe that, I believe that all human life is valuable. Especially preborn life which has yet to do anything wrong and has only come into existance by no means of it's own - but rather circumstances it could not control.

Once again, 95% of these 'circumstances' are that of people not using a means of birth control. Oops!

Anyways, I can go on and on. So I think I'll stop here.

But I suggest that you all research this topic as much as possible. Look at both sides, as I have - look at the Pro-Choice side and the Pro-Life side.

The arguments are night and day.

The Pro-Life side has numbers, facts, convincing evidence.

The Pro-Choice side has no numbers, no facts, no convincing evidence. But rather they play on emotions ("What about rape?" "What about the mother's health?") - and they have catchy little lines ("Keep your laws off of my body" "Every child a wanted child")

It's just like the death penalty argument once again.

The Anti-Death Penalty people have numbers, facts, convincing evidence.

The Pro-Death Penalty people have no numbers, facts, convincing evidence - but rather they play on emotions ("What about if your family was killed?").

Once you get down to the nitty gritty of the whole subject, I'm sure that you'll see, as I have, that the Pro-Choice movement has hardly a leg to stand on. Nothing more than bumper stickers with catchy logos.

The Pro-Life movement....you'll see, as I have, that the Pro-Choice movement has hardly a leg to stand on. Nothing more than bumper stickers with catchy logos.

Some very nice statistics, and some very informative opinions... but no actual facts, a whole load of speculation, and nothing to back it up, I'm afraid.

You have made your own choice. Now, have the courtesy of allowing others to have theirs.

Some very nice statistics, and some very informative opinions... but no actual facts, a whole load of speculation, and nothing to back it up, I'm afraid.

You have made your own choice. Now, have the courtesy of allowing others to have theirs.

You must have made the embarassing mistake of reading someone elses post - as mine was very factual, very common sensical, and very articulate.

Statistics are facts. And they were used in my arguments, thus making them factual.

But thank you for the - whatever that was - false commentary, really. Heh.

Oh and for the record, I have done several abortion debates and from what I am told I have won all of them.

I did not win them by speculating, and not backing up my arguments - as you suggest.

So I guess, heh, you're just flat out wrong.

I have convinced many others to become Pro-Life. Once again, not by speculating and not by using empty arguments.

Reread my post and maybe this time take the time to respond to the arguments ! lol. Unless you feel you cannot compile a convincing Pro-Choice argument.

Don't feel bad, not a lot of people can. :D

You must have made the embarassing mistake of reading someone elses post - as mine was very factual, very common sensical, and very articulate.

Statistics are facts. And they were used in my arguments, thus making them factual.

But thank you for the - whatever that was - false commentary, really. Heh.
actually, your statistics are anything but fact. for example,

"And keep in mind that less than 1% of all abortion cases are that of 'rape'.
Also, 1/3 of our generation has been wasted by abortion - 1/3 - that's more than 40 million abortions! With 95% of those being cases of 'birth control'.
That's right, 95% of all abortion cases are that of 'birth control' - people being irresponsible."

now, according to the AMA, at least 10% of abortions performed in the US are due to medical necessity. this means cases where the mother's life or health is put at serious risk by carrying a pregnancy to term, or cases in which the fetus is suffering such critical defects that it would never be able to survive. so right there your 95% statistic is out the window. add to that the fact that fully 55% of women who are asked (annonymously) about their abortion report that they were using contraception when they became pregnant, and the contraception failed...if you think it is irresponsible to have sex at all then that is your personal opinion, but you are going to have a hard time proving that it is objectively irresponsible, or that women are using abortion as their "birth control."

your "statistics" are made-up numbers that express your personal feelings on the subject. you aren't presenting facts, you are just giving numerical values to the same opinions that have already been voiced many times over, and unless you can cite credible, objective sources your "statistics" aren't going to be recognized as fact.

Let's think about this rationally.

Do you have a right to tell another person what to do? I mean as a person not with a title or in some organization like a cult, *cough military cough*.

You really don't. And if there was no abortions how many people, r children, would be out on the streets begging for food and dying a slow and painful death of stravation? How many more jobs would need to be created. And where would we put them? DO we cut down the envrioment jsut so you can feel happy? What about diases that could run rampat in our society more people equals more chances for horriable birth defects, diases, and anything assoicated with Birth.

If you agree that forcing pain on someone is torture. Then are you tourturing people by saying abortion should be illegal.

When in fact, the Pro-Life arguments have very little (or in my case nothing) to do with religion.
Try and tell me the majority of anti-abortion sentiment does not come from the churches.

The problem I have with abortion is that I feel there is no real situation where a woman needs an abortion.
You say there is no real situation...and then acknowledge that some abortions are from rape and because of threats to the mother's life. What was your point again?

The raped woman can put the child up for adoption and go on with her life as if she had an abortion - and she doesn't have to feel depressed or upset afterwards as she would most probably feel if she had an abortion.
That is plain ignorance. Think for a minute what pregnancy entails. 9 months. Giving birth. "Just put it up for adoption, no big deal". Hah. Maybe she has a job she'd like to keep working? Maybe she has school she'd like to attend? Maybe she has a diploma she'd like to receive in person her senior year in high school? (that's right. Pregnant girls are not allowed to walk the stage at my former high school...it "sends a bad message".) Try telling a woman with an unwanted pregnancy that she "doesn't have to feel depressed or upset afterwards". You're presuming to guess what a woman will feel after her choice. And then you use it as leverage to take away that choice. It's rediculous.

Also, 1/3 of our generation has been wasted by abortion - 1/3 - that's more than 40 million abortions! With 95% of those being cases of 'birth control'.
So you're one of those "The more babies the better!!!" people. And it's funny how you blend together abortion with birth control. Are you mad at couples who get vasectomies and choose not to have children, because they are wasting the future generation?

That's right, 95% of all abortion cases are that of 'birth control' - people being irresponsible.

So 95%, a vast majority of these cases - cannot be excused.
Why does it matter if they are "responsible" or "irresponsible"? You claim that all life is precious, and oppose abortion even in case of rape, so why the "extra" opposition to abortion not in case of rape. If you claim a zygote is a human, you should oppose rape and non-rape abortions equally.

Now, I've seen a lot of analogies - comparing the preborn human to that of a chicken.

First of all, anyone who puts barnyard chickens (cluck cluck) on the level of human beings - really is not someone I feel is intelligent enough to debate with me about abortion to begin with.
How can a single cell be a human being?

It's a sort of hierarchy, and following that logic an NBA basketball star's life is much more important than mine because I am just a High School student.
You do see the difference between fully grown, thinking, reasoning adults, compared to single fertilized egg cells, right?

I refuse to believe that, I believe that all human life is valuable. Especially preborn life which has yet to do anything wrong and has only come into existance by no means of it's own - but rather circumstances it could not control.
Well, I believe the life of a woman is more important than that of an unthinking parasitic blob of underdeveloped cells.

My post makes Pro-lifers look like heartless people who like to inflict pain on others.

But your posts makes them look like idiots!

Hmmm... i think yours is better.

I've got an idea, abortions for all!!!

My points...

You know that baby on the airplane that screams the entire way... not gonna happen again.

Youth Related Crime wouldn't be a problem

No more teenage mothers, soccer moms or deadbeat dads

This is my Anti-Choice, Anti-Life stance... Thank you

I agree with your 'legal' idea, that there can be no 'duty of care' before awareness of the foetus is gained... but I have a little disagreement over the implications you entail when the pregnancy is discovered... if the woman already wants an abortion when she goes to the clinic, she has made the decision before her 'duty of care' begins.... for the clinic to then tell her she IS pregnant, they remove her privilige of the 'duty' amnesty state that ignorance provided... but her decision was ALREADY made...

The only moral/legal way through that maze, that I can see, would be for the clinic to perform an 'abortion' WITHOUT informing the woman she was pregnant... which opens up a whole different can of legal worms.

Yes. Damn Good points.

That is where the problem lies. Under my current system, sex does not denote responsibility as it was not an affirmative act towards any other being creating a duty of care. So, when the duty of care exists would be the hot topic.

The question becomes, after engaging in consensual sex, what is the period of time we could expect a person to know, or expect that the person should know, that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant. It would be during that time that contraceptive methods to avoid fertilization, or force a cycle, should be implemented. (This requires the availibility of such drugs be granted) Failure to do so during that period would constitute the affirmative act towards the life cycle of another. So, so long as the decision is made during that time frame, the measures could be taken. Anytime thereafter if pregnancy is detrimental to the existence of the mother.

Determining that time has become the key to the whole equation, as it is the point of contention in determining all negligence (breach of duty) suits.

A friend (Biologist, philosopher, possible Bioethics Ph.D) and myself (Env. Sci, Econ, & possible J.D.) are considering a paper on this subject now. Possibly take about two years to write. This would be one of the tough questions to outline. If you are interested, let me know, as you aided in my developing this frame of thought. Pithica, also let me know if interested.

You must have made the embarassing mistake of reading someone elses post - as mine was very factual, very common sensical, and very articulate.

Statistics are facts. And they were used in my arguments, thus making them factual.

But thank you for the - whatever that was - false commentary, really. Heh.

Oh and for the record, I have done several abortion debates and from what I am told I have won all of them.

I did not win them by speculating, and not backing up my arguments - as you suggest.

So I guess, heh, you're just flat out wrong.

I have convinced many others to become Pro-Life. Once again, not by speculating and not by using empty arguments.

Reread my post and maybe this time take the time to respond to the arguments ! lol. Unless you feel you cannot compile a convincing Pro-Choice argument.

Don't feel bad, not a lot of people can. :D


Statistics are facts?

I am now convinced we should make philosophy and statistics a mandatory part of 9-12 grade public education.

You must have made the embarassing mistake of reading someone elses post - as mine was very factual, very common sensical, and very articulate.

Statistics are facts. And they were used in my arguments, thus making them factual.

But thank you for the - whatever that was - false commentary, really. Heh.

Oh and for the record, I have done several abortion debates and from what I am told I have won all of them.

I did not win them by speculating, and not backing up my arguments - as you suggest.

So I guess, heh, you're just flat out wrong.

I have convinced many others to become Pro-Life. Once again, not by speculating and not by using empty arguments.

Reread my post and maybe this time take the time to respond to the arguments ! lol. Unless you feel you cannot compile a convincing Pro-Choice argument.

Don't feel bad, not a lot of people can. :D

Sorry, friend... I am sure it was very compelling for you...

But none of the statistics have any backing... you cite no sources, or even reference any research... so, all you have is commentary.

Nice, though. I'll give you that, but without substance.

Shame really, your 'side' really needs the help, here.

Yes. Damn Good points.

That is where the problem lies. Under my current system, sex does not denote responsibility as it was not an affirmative act towards any other being creating a duty of care. So, when the duty of care exists would be the hot topic.

The question becomes, after engaging in consensual sex, what is the period of time we could expect a person to know, or expect that the person should know, that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant. It would be during that time that contraceptive methods to avoid fertilization, or force a cycle, should be implemented. (This requires the availibility of such drugs be granted) Failure to do so during that period would constitute the affirmative act towards the life cycle of another. So, so long as the decision is made during that time frame, the measures could be taken. Anytime thereafter if pregnancy is detrimental to the existence of the mother.

Determining that time has become the key to the whole equation, as it is the point of contention in determining all negligence (breach of duty) suits.

A friend (Biologist, philosopher, possible Bioethics Ph.D) and myself (Env. Sci, Econ, & possible J.D.) are considering a paper on this subject now. Possibly take about two years to write. This would be one of the tough questions to outline. If you are interested, let me know, as you aided in my developing this frame of thought. Pithica, also let me know if interested.

I am, of course, interested - since any new experience is a learning experience... also, I have been considering for a while getting myself 're-educated' into a field like Medical Ethics, since that human-edge-to-science has always been very compelling...

By the way, I totally agree with your 'sex is not the duty of care' concept... I have argued this line several times in this thread: that consenting to sex is NOT the same as consenting to reproduction.

I do think this is a dangerous route though... although I agree with your concept as preferable to the total abolition of abortion... I still feel that women should have the right to abortion if they do not want to continue the pregnancy.

I wish the far-right would stay out of politics long enough for some funding to trickle into technologies that would enable even a conceptus to be removed SAFELY and fostered synthetically to maturation - thus protecting the rights of the 'mother' AND the foetus.

At the moment, I am forced to side with the mother and HER rights over any possible legal rights that might be granted to pre-borns.

"Shame really, your 'side' really needs the help, here."

Well, actually recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans agree with my 'side'. Heh.

Here are some sources,

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0417_Americans_Oppose_Mos.html
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152219%2526M%253D50011,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200301%5CCUL20030116c.html
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087
http://tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/01212003-02.htm

Oh and as for those percentages I gave earlier,

Source: Central Illinois Right To Life

"Shame really, your 'side' really needs the help, here."

Well, actually recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans agree with my 'side'. Heh.

Here are some sources,

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0417_Americans_Oppose_Mos.html
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152219%2526M%253D50011,00.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200301%5CCUL20030116c.html
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087
http://tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/01212003-02.htm

Oh and as for those percentages I gave earlier,

Source: Central Illinois Right To Life

"Central Illinois Right to Life"... based, no doubt on extensive research, and in no way partisan? How about providing a medical resource... you know, the people who would have the ACTUAL figures?

Now, lets look at your sources: The forerunner source was a poll carried out more than a decade ago, and only among 750 people, certainly a very small number to estimate the politics of a whole society. Your source is, itself, a "rights-to-life" group (and, therefore biased), and misses important statistical information, like how many people actually responded to any given question.

The lifeway article is not any kind of report on statistics (indeed, the statistics are only briefly mentioned), but a presentation of the speculations of anti-abortionists. "Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) — Surveys of abortion facilities around the U.S. released Wednesday show the year 2000 with the fewest number of abortions performed since 1974. Pro-life activists said that, combined with new polling data on the country's attitude about abortion, prove that "America is turning pro-life."" You notice 'pro-life activists' made that statement.. not an independant body. Also, if you look at the questions used, they are leading questions, and should, therefore have no statistical significance, since they break one of the core 'rules' of market research.

And, of course, Lifeway is a christian, anti-abortion source, and so can hardly claim impartiality.

The CNS article basically rehashes the same article that Lifeway presented, with less information. I notice that CNS also hides it's conservative bias, which is not clearly revealed anywhere on the site. A VERY careful review of the history of CNS, however, reveals that it was formed to 'balance out' the perceived 'liberal' approach of other media...

The Zogby article may be by a 'respected' researcher, but the information presented is jumbled and presented with a definite "pro-life" skew... e.g. "60 percent of 18-29 year-olds took one of the pro-life positions on abortion while only 39 percent agreed with the three pro-abortion stances" - where one issue is compared to three issues, as though there were some equality in that ratio.

I also notice that the article implies that less than one fifth of americans believe there should be an absolute ban on abortion: "abortion should never be legal (18 percent)"

The last source is, of course, by a right-to-life organisation - and so very unlikely to be entirely objective... and, of course, this is rehashing the same article that CNS and Lifeway were debating earlier, and with the same lack of actual hard statistics, and the same biased questions.

Of course, all these articles mentioning the reduction in number of abortions requested are missing one key factor, which is: the generation that had access to the greatest amount of sex-education is now heading a trend away from abortions... which implies that education about pregnancy is helping to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

"abortion should never be legal (18 percent)"
That I think is the most important statistic. As long as a clear majority of people agree that abortion is right in some instances, we can argue the other instances. If public sentiment ever turns completely against abortion (as I fear it is slowly doing), it may take a brief return to pre-Roe. v. Wade to get the pro-choice movement rolling again. With the sensational nature of news today, we'll be seeing dead women by the thousands from botched illegal abortions, rather than the quiet coverups of years past. Today's generation simply doesn't remember what it was like before Roe v. Wade. This sounds funny to say, because I am only 18. But I can, with a little imagination, think what it was like. Why can't everyone else?

It's the religious right driving the anti-abortion movement. They'll take your birth control pills next, then your condoms.

Does anyone besides me see how dangerous they are?!

Oh, and here's another poll: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

Fifty-two percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, down from 59 percent in January and almost back to where it was (53 percent) last summer. Forty-three percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Chief factors in views on abortion:

first number pro-choice people, second number pro-life people

Religious beliefs 9% 50
Personal nonreligious beliefs 35 19
Education 22 9
Personal experience 10 8
Things read/seen in the news 8 3
Opinions of family and friends 4 4
Something else 13 6

I am, of course, interested - since any new experience is a learning experience... also, I have been considering for a while getting myself 're-educated' into a field like Medical Ethics, since that human-edge-to-science has always been very compelling...

By the way, I totally agree with your 'sex is not the duty of care' concept... I have argued this line several times in this thread: that consenting to sex is NOT the same as consenting to reproduction.

I do think this is a dangerous route though... although I agree with your concept as preferable to the total abolition of abortion... I still feel that women should have the right to abortion if they do not want to continue the pregnancy.

I wish the far-right would stay out of politics long enough for some funding to trickle into technologies that would enable even a conceptus to be removed SAFELY and fostered synthetically to maturation - thus protecting the rights of the 'mother' AND the foetus.

At the moment, I am forced to side with the mother and HER rights over any possible legal rights that might be granted to pre-borns.

Understood, and such technology is preferable to any atlernative.

There is a difference, albeit hard to discern, between rights and a duty of care. The primary difference being the mental inability to excercise any rights, which makes necessary a guardian/representative. Parents bringing suits for injury to their children, owner bringing suit for injury to their dog, etc...

A paper such as this does not require that its authors are advocates. More, that if this is how we can look at the issue, perhaps it is an option for society to consider. I have no doubt it would incite serious consideration on conceptus incubation research from even the staunchest anti-abortionists.

If you can, telegram me (I cannot telegram your NS) with an email and I will provide you with my contact information via email.

A good introduction to moral philosophy is: The Elements of Moral Philosophy 4ed. by James Rachels. It is informative and inexpensive.

Take Care,

-AP

At the moment, I am forced to side with the mother and HER rights over any possible legal rights that might be granted to pre-borns.

This is at the heart of the duty of care concept. Bodily soveriegnty exists so long as it does not result in harm to other entities that pose no threat to your existence. Ingesting substances to the point where you neglect or abuse others, etc. Issue of danger of pregnancy addressed earlier.

I am setting up a meeting with a faculty member next semester, after or during winter break, to discuss the process for a joint paper for publishing.

At this point, further communications on my part should probably be via email.

Take Care,

-AP

Point of outlining education was to alleviate any fears that you may be speaking to a quack who basis arguments on information taken entirely from the internet.

Thank you, to both you.

You're welcome, and thank you.

With respect to a chicken and an egg. It depends on whether or not a life cycle begins. Not all chicken eggs are fertilized developing chickens, nor is an apple a developing apple tree, as it has not come into contact with an environment that allows for its growth.

My question still stands unanswered, do you believe that it is logical to say that the same rules always apply to a fertilized chicken egg or an apple that apply to them later in life? My contention is that even if we say a conceptus is 'alive' because it is part of a possible beings life cycle, that is not the same as saying the rules for one stage can or should apply to all stages. This also has no accounting for conceptii that miscarry. Since they never develop to a stage where they meet all the life criteria, were they ever really alive? Do the same rules apply to them that apply to a wealthy retiree? Is an apple a tree, or is it just the possibility of a tree?

I believe that it is more correct and more reasonable to say the second than to try and change what seems obvious to make the first work.

[SNIP]
However, when no action is taken, implantation occurs, and we reach a time where a reasonable person would know or should know that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant, and inquires into an abortion, and discovers she is pregnant, it is to late. By not taking the available (will only invoke this line of thought if the afforementioned procedures become available) precautions, and allowing the pregnancy to reach that point, she has committed an affirmative act. Her actions constitute a promise to allow another life form to go through its life cycle, and that promise is detrimental to it. Thus a duty of care has been created. A duty of care is not the same as a right, it is an observance and promise not to act such that you harm another being regarldless of sentience or stage of develpment when it is undertaken, as in our duty to care for endangered species, pets, and so forth)

I disagree with this. A lack of immediate response on the part of the mother could be due to a number of issues and doesn't necessarily constitute an 'affirmative' act towards the supporting of the pregnancy. I have taken more than six weeks to decide what kind of car to buy, I think we can both reasonably aggree that whether or not to birth a child and risk your life is a much bigger decision than what kind of wheels you tool around in.

Above that, there are always education concerns (not everyone that gets pregnant thought they could, so they might not have known what to do in the interim), there are psychological concerns (denial ain't just a river in egypt), and there are social pressures as well (the man being against her using a morning after pill or her family, or church, etc.). Quite frankly, a lack of action over a very short period of time, should not force a legal duty to risk one's life in a way they are unwilling to if there are viable ways to add choice to the matter.

Maybe it's just me.

So a human being depends on genetics and life cycle to me.
Personhood and rights, however, do not.

Assume that every time I said 'human', 'human being' or what have you that I meant what you mean when you say 'person'.

Now, beyond that, I totally agree with the above, which is why I do not feel it is necessary or prudent to apply 'rights' to an early stage conceptus (1st/2nd tri), as they do not have the organs capable of supplying them with the components currently necessary for 'personhood'.

The raped woman can put the child up for adoption and go on with her life as if she had an abortion - and she doesn't have to feel depressed or upset afterwards as she would most probably feel if she had an abortion.

You have no concept of depression or what goes on emotionally after rape, pregnancy, abortion, birth, or adoption. Your ignorance of this makes me wonder about your experience in life.

Statistics are facts. And they were used in my arguments, thus making them factual.

99% of statistics are made up. Cite your source, make sure it doesn't have an agenda, and maybe we'll consider your arguments. Until then, it's blatherskite.

The question becomes, after engaging in consensual sex, what is the period of time we could expect a person to know, or expect that the person should know, that she, or his sexual partner, is pregnant. It would be during that time that contraceptive methods to avoid fertilization, or force a cycle, should be implemented. (This requires the availibility of such drugs be granted) Failure to do so during that period would constitute the affirmative act towards the life cycle of another. So, so long as the decision is made during that time frame, the measures could be taken. Anytime thereafter if pregnancy is detrimental to the existence of the mother.

Determining that time has become the key to the whole equation, as it is the point of contention in determining all negligence (breach of duty) suits.

A friend (Biologist, philosopher, possible Bioethics Ph.D) and myself (Env. Sci, Econ, & possible J.D.) are considering a paper on this subject now. Possibly take about two years to write. This would be one of the tough questions to outline. If you are interested, let me know, as you aided in my developing this frame of thought. Pithica, also let me know if interested.

Yes it sounds interesting.

Regarding your question. Since humans are not an endangered speces, I cannot see a 'duty of care' argument holding any water legally before the fetus becomes viable. Before that time, it's life-cycle completion exists in potentia and not in actuality. I can think of a multitude of reasons why a person would be unable to stop the pregnancy from before intercourse to the point at which she new she was pregnant, and your argument would mean that in spite of her efforts, she would have commited an 'affirmative act' of agreeing to 'duty' simply because she failed to prevent a pregnancy before she became aware of it.

I.E. Even though the chances are small of this happening, it is quite possible that a couple have a discussion before ever having intercourse about neither of them wanting children, they decide to make every effort (barring surgery) to prevent it, he wears a condom with spermicidal lubricant, she takes the pill, they have intercourse, she takes the morning after pill, continues to take regular birth control in an effort to force the cycle, and still finds out she is pregnant 2-6 weeks later. In your scenario her failure to prevent constitutes her aggreeing to risk her life, health, social status, emotional well-being, financial latitude, family standing, job, home, and the next 18-30 years of her life because she 'agreed' to a 'duty of care'.

I find this situation unworkable.

Well, actually recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans agree with my 'side'. Heh.

Even if correct, mob rule does not constitute moral or legal correctness. The majority of people in Mississippi thought for a very long time that it was okay to string up a black man for looking at you funny. That does not mean they were 'right'.

That's called an 'appeal to majority', 'argumentum ad populum', or the 'bandwagon fallacy' and is one of those funny little things we call 'logical fallacy'.

Oh and as for those percentages I gave earlier,

Source: Central Illinois Right To Life

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, that took some juevos.

Cite a real source. You claim to have won debates. Where were you debating at, a Christian School?

This is at the heart of the duty of care concept. Bodily soveriegnty exists so long as it does not result in harm to other entities that pose no threat to your existence. Ingesting substances to the point where you neglect or abuse others, etc. Issue of danger of pregnancy addressed earlier.
-AP

Bolding and italics added by me to illustrate a point. All pregnancies pose threats to the mothers existence. Besides the obvious risk of health complications that result in direct death of the mother, there are also risks of long term health complications that could lead to later death, pre or post-natal depression and/or psychosis that can cause suicide/homicide, risks to loss of job (yes this still happens) or education or spousal/partner/family support that can cause temporary or permanent loss of resources (food, healthcare, housing) all of which can lead to death, etc.

Even a perfectly 'normal' pregnancy is a briar patch of balancing risks for the mother. One thing goes out of whack and you are looking at all kinds of problems. Even a small risk is still a risk. And one that your 'duty of care' argument can easily be forced on an unwilling woman through no fault of her own.

Yes it sounds interesting.

Regarding your question. Since humans are not an endangered speces, I cannot see a 'duty of care' argument holding any water legally before the fetus becomes viable. Before that time, it's life-cycle completion exists in potentia and not in actuality. I can think of a multitude of reasons why a person would be unable to stop the pregnancy from before intercourse to the point at which she new she was pregnant, and your argument would mean that in spite of her efforts, she would have commited an 'affirmative act' of agreeing to 'duty' simply because she failed to prevent a pregnancy before she became aware of it.

I.E. Even though the chances are small of this happening, it is quite possible that a couple have a discussion before ever having intercourse about neither of them wanting children, they decide to make every effort (barring surgery) to prevent it, he wears a condom with spermicidal lubricant, she takes the pill, they have intercourse, she takes the morning after pill, continues to take regular birth control in an effort to force the cycle, and still finds out she is pregnant 2-6 weeks later. In your scenario her failure to prevent constitutes her aggreeing to risk her life, health, social status, emotional well-being, financial latitude, family standing, job, home, and the next 18-30 years of her life because she 'agreed' to a 'duty of care'.

I find this situation unworkable.

Gives me an iteresting thought to extend to out Anti Pharisaism friend...

The man and woman decide up front that they don't want any children, then they have sex.

The decision was made EVEN BEFORE the sexual act took place, where does the 'duty of care' line take us, here?

'agreed' to a 'duty of care'.

She took action, after intercourse, to prevent pregnancy, so it does not meet the qualifications of an affirmative act, and an abortion would be granted. The concept of good faith effort would come into play, and no duty would be found to exist. This would be a court decision prompting funding for conceptus removal research.

TM me.

Duty of care exists regardless of endangered species, there are laws for proper hunting procedures, and against cruelty to animals for example. Used ESA to illustrate the use of life cycle in legislation.

She took action, after intercourse, to prevent pregnancy, so it does not meet the qualifications of an affirmative act, and an abortion would be granted. The concept of good faith effort would come into play, and no duty would be found to exist. This would be a court decision prompting funding for conceptus removal research.

TM me.

I did TM you, didn't I?

If I didn't... I'm spamming someone else with a similar name....

Just got it. :)

I am going to class, will email you this evening.

Take care

-AP

Sent you a message, please reply if you recieve it (to confirm that I sent it to the correct address).

Take Care,

-AP

Sent you a message, please reply if you recieve it (to confirm that I sent it to the correct address).

Take Care,

-AP


Should be winging it's way to you, even as we speak.

later.

(Now we can let anyone else, (apart from, thou, Pithica and I) who still has anything to say on the subject... have their chance.)

:)

I think a lot of pro-choice people tend to forget the worldview held by pro-life people. A lot of their hostility comes from the notion that a pro-life advocate is out to deny their freedom or push their own beliefs on others.

What needs to be understood is that a pro-life believer sees the unborn child as a living human being. To a pro-lifer, abortion is no different from a parent killing a two month old baby. Given that worldview, choice becomes irrelevant. Nobody is advocating a parental right to execute their child after he or she is born, therefore to a pro-lifer it makes no sense to expect the right to kill him or her before birth.

So, if you're going to have some kind of meaningful debate with a pro-lifer, leave the issue of choice out of it. Choice is irrelevant next to the preservation of life. Talk instead about the definition of when life begins perhaps or when it is pointless to carry to term... But do yourself a favor and don't try to convince them it's about choice, because it isn't. It never was.

Pro-choice people are not out to kill babies and they don't believe they're killing anybody. If somehow it was generally accepted that a fetus is truly a living being, then I honestly believe abortions would cease because as I said before, nobody would advocate the right to kill their children.

That, therefore is the real question. Is it a baby or not before birth, and if so, where do you draw the line? That's really the only legitimate question.

I think a lot of pro-choice people tend to forget the worldview held by pro-life people. A lot of their hostility comes from the notion that a pro-life advocate is out to deny their freedom or push their own beliefs on others.

What needs to be understood is that a pro-life believer sees the unborn child as a living human being. To a pro-lifer, abortion is no different from a parent killing a two month old baby. Given that worldview, choice becomes irrelevant. Nobody is advocating a parental right to execute their child after he or she is born, therefore to a pro-lifer it makes no sense to expect the right to kill him or her before birth.

So, if you're going to have some kind of meaningful debate with a pro-lifer, leave the issue of choice out of it. Choice is irrelevant next to the preservation of life. Talk instead about the definition of when life begins perhaps or when it is pointless to carry to term... But do yourself a favor and don't try to convince them it's about choice, because it isn't. It never was.

Pro-choice people are not out to kill babies and they don't believe they're killing anybody. If somehow it was generally accepted that a fetus is truly a living being, then I honestly believe abortions would cease because as I said before, nobody would advocate the right to kill their children.

That, therefore is the real question. Is it a baby or not before birth, and if so, where do you draw the line? That's really the only legitimate question.

On the other hand, the worldview supported by the average pro-choice individual, I would argue, is that what goes on in the uterus of a given woman has absolutely no relevence to anyone not intimately connected to that uterus.

The only really legitimate question, they might argue, is what gives someone else the right to dictate what THEY have inside their body?

So, it's a foetus, or a 'conceptus', or a zygote, or a baby-to-be... the fact is that it isn't born, so it isn't a sovereign entity... perhaps they have some argument around the 24th week, where there is a possibility that the foetus COULD possibly survive, with careful intensive care... but certainly, until that point, the foetus is no more an individual than a lung or a cancer.

She took action, after intercourse, to prevent pregnancy, so it does not meet the qualifications of an affirmative act, and an abortion would be granted. The concept of good faith effort would come into play, and no duty would be found to exist. This would be a court decision prompting funding for conceptus removal research.

TM me.

But there is no way (barring some severe surveilance on everyone, or breakthroughs in tech) to prove or disprove to a court beyond a reasonable doubt that they made all of these actions. It's a legal nightmare. Especially, if one of the parties claimed they didn't (like if the male in the scenario above changes his mind after discovering she is pregnant and decides to try and force her to bear 'his' child). You would have to create an entirely new court just for adjudicating this situation.

Duty of care exists regardless of endangered species, there are laws for proper hunting procedures, and against cruelty to animals for example. Used ESA to illustrate the use of life cycle in legislation.

I didn't mean to imply that a duty of care only existed for endangered species. I meant to imply that in general, there is no logical reason to assume that a duty of care 'should' exist for humans who do not wish it, until the fetus devellops to the point where it can be considered at least to have the physical requirements for personhood.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I have nothing to back it up.

On the other hand, the worldview supported by the average pro-choice individual, I would argue, is that what goes on in the uterus of a given woman has absolutely no relevence to anyone not intimately connected to that uterus.

The only really legitimate question, they might argue, is what gives someone else the right to dictate what THEY have inside their body?

I see and understand your point, but you seem to be leaving out the fact that a pro-lifer would argue that the life of a human being supercedes all other considerations, as it would if said human were already born and out amongst us.

I would also like to point out that my points are associated exclusively with situations where rape and incest are not at issue. No flames, please from anyone, for what I'm about to say.


A pro-lifer would argue that the decision of what goes into that uterus was made the night the lady undressed. Sex is not like eating and breathing. you don't HAVE to do it to survive. Hence, to make the decision to have sex ought to include due consideratino and preparation for the possible outcome. Anything less is a copout.


So, it's a foetus, or a 'conceptus', or a zygote, or a baby-to-be... the fact is that it isn't born, so it isn't a sovereign entity... perhaps they have some argument around the 24th week, where there is a possibility that the foetus COULD possibly survive, with careful intensive care... but certainly, until that point, the foetus is no more an individual than a lung or a cancer.

But you see, that's the whole issue. You draw an arbitrary line at 24 weeks, because that's the age at which current medical technology would be capable of sustaining th elife of that baby outside the body of the mother. What if in 10 years we can sustain that baby at 15 weeks? Will the morality change then? Is what's right and wrong today subject to our level of technological advancement?

Be very careful. If you start letting technology govern your morals and ethics, that's a can of worms you do NOT want to open.

A pro-lifer would argue that the decision of what goes into that uterus was made the night the lady undressed. Sex is not like eating and breathing. you don't HAVE to do it to survive. Hence, to make the decision to have sex ought to include due consideratino and preparation for the possible outcome. Anything less is a copout.

But sex, for all social animals, and for humans in particular, IS like eating and breathing. Beyond the genetic impetus to procreate, there are all kinds of psychological and social pressures to find and copulate with a mate. This is true for both males and females (including homosexuals) and is true across all cultures and religions. Sex helps with emotional stability, physical health, improves mental function, and increases the strength of pair bonds. It also has the unique ability to tie two completely unrelated families into a single unit, a very important survival advantange, especially among tribal peoples.

It is naive and flat out incorrect to say that sex is only done when people wish to procreate. It is a drive unto itself that is sometimes just as strong as the drive to find food.

But you see, that's the whole issue. You draw an arbitrary line at 24 weeks, because that's the age at which current medical technology would be capable of sustaining th elife of that baby outside the body of the mother. What if in 10 years we can sustain that baby at 15 weeks? Will the morality change then? Is what's right and wrong today subject to our level of technological advancement?

Be very careful. If you start letting technology govern your morals and ethics, that's a can of worms you do NOT want to open.

Not to rain on your parade, but the likelyhood is that technology will never be able to sustain a fetus outside of a womb-like environment any younger than the 20th week. Until that time it doesn't have the brain or neural capability to self regulate all of it's internal systems.

Even if it were possible, (or if an 'artificial womb' technology were present) it still would not change my moral stance in regards to the mothers right to refuse service to an unwanted hitchhiker. I would just prefer removal to an artificial womb, than what is currently necessary to allow her this right.

I believe that:

A: Abortion is the same as murder.
B: When the pro-choicers say that a fetus is not "alive" as it is not self reliant, is it not then logical that children under the age of twelve are not self reliant, and therefore not truly alive? I think not.
C: You say that a fetus cannot survive on its own, and on that point I agree. However, abortion is about the same as taking a two day old baby into the desert and leaving it to die. The baby could not likely survive, therefore, I think your arguments are flawed.

:upyours: Abortion should not be allowed. If somebody gets pregnant and does not want there kid then they shoulden't have been a little hoe and opened there legs in the first place. IT'S THERE OWN DAMN FAULT AND THE KID SHOULD BE THERE RESPONSIBILITY. you know it pisses me off abortion is MURDER. if you dont want the kid dont kill it put it up for adoption. Even if the baby may kill the mother on the way out it still should not be aborted. I'd rather lose my life and pass it on to an innocent baby than take the life of the baby cause it may kill me/.

I'm not sure when life begins, but it ends at abortion. This should be all that's needed for this arguement. Whether it is an actual life or simply the begining of life is uncertain, and I would never assume to know the answer to such a question. One way or the other, however, that life is extiguished with abortion.

:upyours: Abortion should not be allowed. If somebody gets pregnant and does not want there kid then they shoulden't have been a little hoe and opened there legs in the first place. IT'S THERE OWN DAMN FAULT AND THE KID SHOULD BE THERE RESPONSIBILITY. you know it pisses me off abortion is MURDER. if you dont want the kid dont kill it put it up for adoption. Even if the baby may kill the mother on the way out it still should not be aborted. I'd rather lose my life and pass it on to an innocent baby than take the life of the baby cause it may kill me/.
Because, of course, women choose to be raped. :rolleyes:

But sex, for all social animals, and for humans in particular, IS like eating and breathing...

That's a copout. Nobody is saying be celibate for life. What I said was if you're not prepared to handle the potential outcome of the sexual act then you can survive just fine not doing it. This is the reason the framework of marriage and the core family exists, folks, and why it's considered immoral by the "old school" thinkers to have sex outside of it.


It is naive and flat out incorrect to say that sex is only done when people wish to procreate. It is a drive unto itself that is sometimes just as strong as the drive to find food.

I didn't say it is only for procreation. I said that was a potential outcome that should be prepared for.


Not to rain on your parade, but the likelyhood is that technology will never be able to sustain a fetus outside of a womb-like environment any younger than the 20th week. Until that time it doesn't have the brain or neural capability to self regulate all of it's internal systems.

You're not raining on my parade, this entire paragraph is beside the point. I was speaking hypothetically.

Even if it were possible, (or if an 'artificial womb' technology were present) it still would not change my moral stance in regards to the mothers right to refuse service to an unwanted hitchhiker. I would just prefer removal to an artificial womb, than what is currently necessary to allow her this right.
So you are still ignoring the original point I was trying to make, which was that to a pro-lifer the right to live supercedes all other considerations. Nobody has yet addressed this. If you disagree with that worldview that's fine, but acknowledge that choice isn't the issue to a pro-lifer. Life is.

That's a copout. Nobody is saying be celibate for life. What I said was if you're not prepared to handle the potential outcome of the sexual act then you can survive just fine not doing it. This is the reason the framework of marriage and the core family exists, folks, and why it's considered immoral by the "old school" thinkers to have sex outside of it.

That depends on your definition of 'just fine'. If you consider less emotional stability, less social support, less resources, and higher risk of health problems to be 'just fine' then that is a subjective opinion you hold. It also depends on what you mean by 'old school' since sex outside of 'marriage' has only relatively recently and only in a handful of cultures ever been deemed 'immoral'.

I didn't say it is only for procreation. I said that was a potential outcome that should be prepared for.

You're right, it should be prepared for, and responded to. Abortion is a response to it. Knowing what is involved in the process is also being prepared for it.

You're not raining on my parade, this entire paragraph is beside the point. I was speaking hypothetically.

So was I. I was trying to illustrate that your contention was beside the point and irrelevant to the discussion.

So you are still ignoring the original point I was trying to make, which was that to a pro-lifer the right to live supercedes all other considerations. Nobody has yet addressed this. If you disagree with that worldview that's fine, but acknowledge that choice isn't the issue to a pro-lifer. Life is.

I am not ignoring your point. I am trying to explain that as a pro-choice individual, I believe that the right to live supercedes all other considerations. Since pregnancy always represents a REAL and IMMEDIATE threat to the life of the mother, the life of anyone else is immaterial to her decision to eliminate that threat. Life is the issue to me. The life of the mother, and the right for her to respond to threats to it from others, the same as every other person.

I'm not sure when life begins, but it ends at abortion. This should be all that's needed for this arguement. Whether it is an actual life or simply the begining of life is uncertain, and I would never assume to know the answer to such a question. One way or the other, however, that life is extiguished with abortion.

Life is extinguished every time you take a breath, move, eat, crap, sleep, piss, shower, shave, or sit competely still doing nothing. This fact is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Or are you suggesting that all of the above should be outlawed?

That depends on your definition of 'just fine'. If you consider less emotional stability, less social support, less resources, and higher risk of health problems to be 'just fine' then that is a subjective opinion you hold. It also depends on what you mean by 'old school' since sex outside of 'marriage' has only relatively recently and only in a handful of cultures ever been deemed 'immoral'.

I wasn't aware that Christianity was a recent development. I also wasn't aware that Christianity invented marriage.

You're right, it should be prepared for, and responded to. Abortion is a response to it. Knowing what is involved in the process is also being prepared for it.

A response, yes. An eithical or moral one... well that's the issue at hand, isn't it?

So was I. I was trying to illustrate that your contention was beside the point and irrelevant to the discussion.

How so? If you're going to draw a line arbitrarily between when the fetus is alive and when it is not, and base it upon available technology then I think that's VERY relevant to the issue.

I am not ignoring your point. I am trying to explain that as a pro-choice individual, I believe that the right to live supercedes all other considerations. Since pregnancy always represents a REAL and IMMEDIATE threat to the life of the mother, the life of anyone else is immaterial to her decision to eliminate that threat. Life is the issue to me. The life of the mother, and the right for her to respond to threats to it from others, the same as every other person.
Ok now I see your perspective. Thank you.

However, it blows my mind that you would characterize pregnancy as ALWAYS a real and immediate threat to life. A sucking chest wound is a real and immediate threat to life. A severed limb is a real and immediate threat to life.

A normal biological process is not, by definition, a real and immediate threat to life. If it were, the woman's immune system would seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite.

(And yes we're all aware that there are exceptions. That isn't the point.)

Except maybe death itself.

Life is extinguished every time you take a breath, move, eat, crap, sleep, piss, shower, shave, or sit competely still doing nothing. This fact is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Or are you suggesting that all of the above should be outlawed?
With all due respect, Pithica... you're being ridiculous here. You know it. I'm pretty sure they are referring to human life and I know you realize that.

I wasn't aware that Christianity was a recent development. I also wasn't aware that Christianity invented marriage.

Since all evidence suggests that we have existed as a species for the last 100,000 years or so and Christianity is only around 2,000 years old and marriage as it currently exists today in the Christian Ethos is only about 600-1700 years old, yes Christianity is a Relatively recent development as is modern marriage. Marriage before this time meant other things, and even today meanst different things in non-christian cultures. Christians do not have the monopoly on deciding the moralities of sex for the rest of the world.

A response, yes. An eithical or moral one... well that's the issue at hand, isn't it?

Ethics and morals are relative and subjective. The issue at hand is not whether or not you or I as an individual consider it so, the issue is whether or not it can be considered universally so, or at least, objectively enough to warrant making a law governing it.

How so? If you're going to draw a line arbitrarily between when the fetus is alive and when it is not, and base it upon available technology then I think that's VERY relevant to the issue.

In case you missed the discussion with Anti Pharisaism earlier (about 3-10 pages back), I am willing to contend that a fetus may be 'alive' from the moment of conception onward (under his/her definition of 'alive'). But that this is immaterial to the discussion of legality in regards to the right of the fetus versus the rights of the mother. I contend that noone has the right to risk the life of another without their express permission, and that since the fetus does this in all cases, the mother has a right to sever that risk, period. How she severs that risk can be debated based on current technology (I.E. if there is a way to protect the fetii's 'life' and sever that risk, that is preferrable to just ending the fetii's 'life'), but that right doesn't change for anything.

Ok now I see your perspective. Thank you.

You're welcome. I intend my posts to you to be civil, by the way, I hope they are read as such. If they are not, let me know and I will endeavour to apologize.

However, it blows my mind that you would characterize pregnancy as ALWAYS a real and immediate threat to life. A sucking chest wound is a real and immediate threat to life. A severed limb is a real and immediate threat to life.

Complications that can threaten the life or long term health of the mother can occur at ANY point during pregnancy. They can occur without warning, and happen so quickly that there is no effective way to treat them with current technology. Mood swings (especially among those women who already have hormone imbalances) can be so severe that a woman can litterally switch from exstatic to suicidal on a moments notice. There aren't any effective drugs on the market that can combat this without posing health risks to the mother or fetus. In addition, long term defficiencies can occur (and become incurable) at any point during pregnancy that may result in immediate or higher risk of death later in life (like the permanent anemia my own mother deals with, or the osteoperosis my grandmother had since her first pregnancy). And this doesn't even begin to get into all the social risks that can occur and are unpredictable (or maybe you don't know anyone that got disowned by their parents or lost their job because of an unplanned pregnancy).

A normal biological process is not, by definition, a real and immediate threat to life. If it were, the woman's immune system would seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite.

Gotcha there. A woman's immune system does attempt to seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite. This is the cause of the vast majority of natural miscarriages.

With all due respect, Pithica... you're being ridiculous here. You know it. I'm pretty sure they are referring to human life and I know you realize that.

I was responding to a rediculous argument. I responded in kind. If they are referring to human life exclusively, they should say so, and in addition give a definition that would include an early stage abortion but not include the destruction of life that occurs when you stub your toe, take a crap, cut yourself, remove a cyst or cancer, or destroy the placenta after birth.

Every action you take destroys human life. Everytime you have sex you destroy human life. Every time a woman menstuates she destoys human life. This destruction isn't inherently evil the way the person I was responding to was attempting to suggest.

I see and understand your point, but you seem to be leaving out the fact that a pro-lifer would argue that the life of a human being supercedes all other considerations, as it would if said human were already born and out amongst us.

I would also like to point out that my points are associated exclusively with situations where rape and incest are not at issue. No flames, please from anyone, for what I'm about to say.

A pro-lifer would argue that the decision of what goes into that uterus was made the night the lady undressed. Sex is not like eating and breathing. you don't HAVE to do it to survive. Hence, to make the decision to have sex ought to include due consideratino and preparation for the possible outcome. Anything less is a copout.

But you see, that's the whole issue. You draw an arbitrary line at 24 weeks, because that's the age at which current medical technology would be capable of sustaining th elife of that baby outside the body of the mother. What if in 10 years we can sustain that baby at 15 weeks? Will the morality change then? Is what's right and wrong today subject to our level of technological advancement?

Be very careful. If you start letting technology govern your morals and ethics, that's a can of worms you do NOT want to open.

Starting at the bottom, and working backwards... 24 weeks isn't arbitrary. The reason I cite it ISN'T purely because it has been recorded as pretty much the cut-off point for premature birth survival. The actual reason for my citing that time, is that it marks the 'completion' (if you will) of the foetal brain - and I think there is reason to allow that a creature with a functioning brain is alive.

In 10 years time, maybe we WILL be able to sustain a fifteen week foetus... but it won't have a brain. Maybe in another few years, we'll be able to remove the conceptus and incubate it to survival and 'birth' in a lab - at which point 'abortion' is an irrelevence.

You are confusing 'choices'. I also notice you blame the woman... "the decision of what goes into that uterus was made the night the lady undressed"... like a man isn't required, in some fashion, for conception...

The woman can chose sex. That doesn't mean she choses pregnancy. She can chose sex and precautions... she is trying to AVOID pregnancy... she isn't 'choosing pregnancy'.

Now the standard answer is that, if she didn't want babies (the unwanted result of her actions), she shouldn't have sex. If she has sex, she somehow DESERVES to be forced to carry the child to fruition.

Okay. Let's look at a parallel. People like to eat. Sometimes, when people eat, they choke. They may try to avoid it (not swallowing fishbones, that kind of thing), but it is still a risk. The equivalent situation would be the pro-life camp leaning over the choking person saying "You CHOSE to eat, and you knew choking was a risk... We know you tried to avoid it, but you knew it was a risk, so now you have to deal with it".

That's an excellent analogy.

Now the standard answer is that, if she didn't want babies (the unwanted result of her actions), she shouldn't have sex. If she has sex, she somehow DESERVES to be forced to carry the child to fruition.

Okay. Let's look at a parallel. People like to eat. Sometimes, when people eat, they choke. They may try to avoid it (not swallowing fishbones, that kind of thing), but it is still a risk. The equivalent situation would be the pro-life camp leaning over the choking person saying "You CHOSE to eat, and you knew choking was a risk... We know you tried to avoid it, but you knew it was a risk, so now you have to deal with it".

Too bad our pretzelloving friend george didn't see it this way...

Since all evidence suggests that we have existed as a species for the last 100,000 years or so and Christianity is only around 2,000 years old and marriage as it currently exists today in the Christian Ethos is only about 600-1700 years old, yes Christianity is a Relatively recent development as is modern marriage. Marriage before this time meant other things, and even today meanst different things in non-christian cultures. Christians do not have the monopoly on deciding the moralities of sex for the rest of the world.

In the first place, Christianity did not invent marriage. To suggest that it has only existed for as long as Christianity is erroneous. Secondly, to assert an understanding of undocumented human history prior to the time of written record is taking a liberty. You've done both in this pararaph.


Ethics and morals are relative and subjective. The issue at hand is not whether or not you or I as an individual consider it so, the issue is whether or not it can be considered universally so, or at least, objectively enough to warrant making a law governing it.
I disagree. There are certain baseline moral and ethical concepts that are universal. Murder, incest, pedophilia, theft and assault are all considered universally wrong. Cultures that practice such things as a matter of normal daily life are considered primitive and inferior.


In case you missed the discussion with Anti Pharisaism earlier (about 3-10 pages back), I am willing to contend that a fetus may be 'alive' from the moment of conception onward (under his/her definition of 'alive'). But that this is immaterial to the discussion of legality in regards to the right of the fetus versus the rights of the mother. I contend that noone has the right to risk the life of another without their express permission, and that since the fetus does this in all cases, the mother has a right to sever that risk, period. How she severs that risk can be debated based on current technology (I.E. if there is a way to protect the fetii's 'life' and sever that risk, that is preferrable to just ending the fetii's 'life'), but that right doesn't change for anything.

I disagree that it is immaterial to the legalities. Remember, that baby didn't just spontaneously appear in the uterus and begin leeching. Pregnancy is a direct result or a decision that has ALREADY been made.

(Just a sec, I need to insert an anti-flame disclaimer here for the people who didn't read my previous post where I indicated that my arguments are limited to circumstances exclusing cases of rape/incest.)

That's the reason I can't give much weight to the argument that the baby doesn't have a right to live at the expense of the mother. Under normal circumstances, she got pregnant due to a choice she made. Pregnancy is a possible result. Period.

[QUOTE=Pithica]You're welcome. I intend my posts to you to be civil, by the way, I hope they are read as such. If they are not, let me know and I will endeavour to apologize.
As do I, and I extend the same invitation to call me out if I become unkind as well.


Complications that can threaten the life or long term health of the mother can occur at ANY point during pregnancy...
You are quite right to point out the examples and issues you did, and indeed pregnancy can result in complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Under such circumstances I do believe that an abortion can be justified. However, that still doesn't mean that pregnancy is ALWAYS an IMMEDIATE threat.

SOME pregnancies result in a POTENTIAL threat. I have 3 kids myself and at no point during any of the pregnancies was my wife's life in any danger. On the other hand, my mom actually DID have complications on more than one occasion where action was necessary. There's a huge difference.


Gotcha there. A woman's immune system does attempt to seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite. This is the cause of the vast majority of natural miscarriages.

No you haven't got me there. I am aware of the cause of miscarriages, and in such a scenario the natural barriers that prevent the immune system from attacking the baby failed for whatever reason. The amniotic sac and the separation of circulatory systems within the placenta are all natural safeguards to maintain the baby's life. This is why it's natural. A mother's body takes more action to preserve the life of its unborn child than to expel it.

You are confusing 'choices'. I also notice you blame the woman... "the decision of what goes into that uterus was made the night the lady undressed"... like a man isn't required, in some fashion, for conception...


I don't blame women, per se... But I leave men out of the discussion because according to laws sympathetic to YOUR point of view, the man gets no say in the decision-making process of abortion. If I sleep with a woman and get her pregnant, and she chooses to abort I, as the father, have *NO* legal recourse to prevent it. Don't try to paint me as a sexist, please.


Okay. Let's look at a parallel. People like to eat. Sometimes, when people eat, they choke. They may try to avoid it (not swallowing fishbones, that kind of thing), but it is still a risk. The equivalent situation would be the pro-life camp leaning over the choking person saying "You CHOSE to eat, and you knew choking was a risk... We know you tried to avoid it, but you knew it was a risk, so now you have to deal with it".

No, that's a miserable example. The biological purpose for eating is to nourish and energize the body. Choking is an aberration and is a natural accident. On the other hand, the biological purpose for sex is to achieve pregnancy. Therefore is that is the result, then biologically speaking, the couplation was successful. It's apples and oranges, friend.

I disagree. There are certain baseline moral and ethical concepts that are universal. Murder, incest, pedophilia, theft and assault are all considered universally wrong. Cultures that practice such things as a matter of normal daily life are considered primitive and inferior.


I disagree as i believe there are no universal morals and ethics.

You say any culture that practices murder is wrong and inferior, then you consider the US wrong as they still have capital punishment and kill people in wars.
If murdering one innocent child would help you save millions, would it always be wrong (both sides can be argued)?
If only a man and his sister are left on the planet, is incest wrong?
If no woman on earth would want to get pregnant, would raping them for the sake of survival of mankind be wrong?
If a family is starving, is it wrong for the parents to steal bread?
If only an old man, almost dead, and a fertile girl were left, would pedophilia be wrong?

If you claim something to be universally wrong, it has to be wrong in every case possible.

No, that's a miserable example. The biological purpose for eating is to nourish and energize the body. Choking is an aberration and is a natural accident. On the other hand, the biological purpose for sex is to achieve pregnancy. Therefore is that is the result, then biologically speaking, the couplation was successful. It's apples and oranges, friend.

Procreation is not the only biological purpose for sex, nor is it the only personal purpose for sex. Therefore, your argument is wrong on its face. To some, pregnancy is like choking. To others, it is exactly what they were hoping for.

Too bad our pretzelloving friend george didn't see it this way...

Too bad he didn't see the logic of the comparison?

Or too bad his aides didn't stand around him, pointing and jeering, and telling him, "You chose to eat pretzels, now you have to deal with the consequences".

*Very, Very sinister laugh*.