NationStates Jolt Archive

Does life begin at conception or at the first breath, do either really justify the murder of a potential human being?
Is it right that we are willing to sacrifice life for life?

really most say it begins at birth...

but i think it is when the heart starts beating and the brain starts to become active..

Either way the embryo has the potential of being human. We need to protect the sanctity of all life.

Either way the embryo has the potential of being human. We need to protect the sanctity of all life.
Human life is not sancrosact, however, innocent human life should never be thrown away. A child, whether in a womb or out, is thinking, feeling, and breathing, and is no different from the time when it's born to the time five seconds before that when it's in the womb.

Exactly, saying that it is not valid life is only a selfish excuse to continue the senseless murder.

Interesting contradiction in the news right now. Law allows women to have abortions claiming it is not a child, but a fetus. On the other hand, Scott Peterson is being tried for the murder of his wife and his unborn child. Does this mean that if the baby is loved and wanted it is human, but if it is an inconvenience caused my a few minutes of irresponsibility on the part of the mother it loses its human status and becomes a disposable fetus?

Clinically speaking, the DNA of the fetus is human from the moment of conception. This means the embryonic phase is merely one stage in the human life cycle. If you want to keep religion and politics out of it then science says that abortion is murder.

I was so worried people that came to this thread were going to be prochoice. I am glad there are still some sane people I can talk to.

Presumably, somewhere in between the two extremes. Implantation? Viability? You make the call.

Of course, our Republican friends believe that human life is sacred only up to the moment of birth; after that, you're fair game. Especially if you're born into the wrong kind of family.

Presumably, somewhere in between the two extremes. Implantation? Viability? You make the call.

Of course, our Republican friends believe that human life is sacred only up to the moment of birth; after that, you're fair game. Especially if you're born into the wrong kind of family.
Republicans believe innocent life is sacred. Guilty life is not.

I am against abortion (surprise surprise, I am religious :) ). I'd say that it is wrong to kill something that is both ...

a)alive (i.e. displays the 7 life processes)
b)and has a full complement of human DNA, hence making it human

Thus, in my opinion, abortion is wrong. Contraception on the other hand, is OK in my book, as the full complement of human DNA is not present, so the gametes (sex cells) are not human.

Interesting contradiction in the news right now. Law allows women to have abortions claiming it is not a child, but a fetus. On the other hand, Scott Peterson is being tried for the murder of his wife and his unborn child. Does this mean that if the baby is loved and wanted it is human, but if it is an inconvenience caused my a few minutes of irresponsibility on the part of the mother it loses its human status and becomes a disposable fetus?

Clinically speaking, the DNA of the fetus is human from the moment of conception. This means the embryonic phase is merely one stage in the human life cycle. If you want to keep religion and politics out of it then science says that abortion is murder.

Brilliant point. I'm still unsure how people can say the baby isn't human until the umbilical cord is cut.

I agree with that. Sperm is not alive, neither are eggs, but the sum of the two is more than their parts.
EDIT: Directed towards the post two up.

Wow, my side of the argument is woefully under represented. I'm pro-choice because, regardless of my beliefs on the moment a fetus becomes "alive", and it is very debatable, I don't think I have any right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion because I don't believe in them.

The pro-choice view isn't crazy, its just the mother and her pain is easier to understand and relate to. Some people just can't understand how something so small and different from themselves is a living human being. It's alot easier to focus on the affect on the mother to attempt to justify such actions, then it is to face the consequences of sex and the reality of the fetus being alive. That being said abortion makes me sick to my stomach.

Wow, my side of the argument is woefully under represented. I'm pro-choice because, regardless of my beliefs on the moment a fetus becomes "alive", and it is very debatable, I don't think I have any right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion because I don't believe in them.

How about she can't have an abortion because its murder?

Wow, my side of the argument is woefully under represented. I'm pro-choice because, regardless of my beliefs on the moment a fetus becomes "alive", and it is very debatable, I don't think I have any right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion because I don't believe in them.
Similar to how you can't tell the guy who pulls the plug on his ailing father just because you don't believe in murder?

How about she can't have an abortion because its murder?

According to who? You? She may not think that a fetus is a life. You have to accept that it is not commonly agreed upon when the moment a fetus becomes a life is, and until it can be concretely scientifically proven when it does, it's a matter of differing beliefs. And who are you to tell her that she cannot have an abortion because you think that her fetus is a human being?

Either way the embryo has the potential of being human. We need to protect the sanctity of all life.
Dude, every single cell in your body has the potential of being human, via cloning.

Arguing that a zygote will become a human is silly, you need to prove that zygote is already a human at the moment of conception.

Similar to how you can't tell the guy who pulls the plug on his ailing father just because you don't believe in murder?

No, because it is commonly accepted that a 80something year old man is alive. A fetus is debatable.

According to who? You? She may not think that a fetus is a life.
I may not think a bullet speeding to my brain is going to kill me, but that doesn't matter after I'm dead.

You have to accept that it is not commonly agreed upon when the moment a fetus becomes a life is, and until it can be concretely scientifically proven when it does, it's a matter of differing beliefs. And who are you to tell her that she cannot have an abortion because you think that her fetus is a human being?
Her fetus is human. If it isn't, what is it? Homo insignificus? Science doesn't have an exact definition for life, in fact my biology book jokingly describes something alive as being "not dead," as death is far easier to measure. Therefore, a fetus is alive until you kill it.

No, because it is commonly accepted that a 80something year old man is alive. A fetus is debatable.
Is it life? If you can kill it, I would say it is.

While I personally believe abortion is murder, I understand that my view is based on my faith. I also know that I cannot legislate my faith for other women, who may not believe as I do. Therefore, the right to privacy (encompassing the right to choose termination) must be upheld.

Furthermore, those fetuses that've been terminated should be open to scientific research, particularly embryonic stem cell research. The loss of (what I consider to be) one human life should at least reap the benefit of saving another life.

Laurie

I may not think a bullet speeding to my brain is going to kill me, but that doesn't matter after I'm dead.

That has nothing to do with this argument.


Her fetus is human. If it isn't, what is it? Homo insignificus? Science doesn't have an exact definition for life, in fact my biology book jokingly describes something alive as being "not dead," as death is far easier to measure. Therefore, a fetus is alive until you kill it.

But is it a human being? It has none of the distinguishing characteristics of a human being, and it is virtually indistinguishable from any other group of cells early on. The fact is that it is not agreed upon at which point you can call a fetus a human. It is simply not proven yet. So, until it is, it is a matter of belief, and no one, in my mind, has the right to enforce their beliefs upon anohter.

Is it life? If you can kill it, I would say it is.

That's completely not the point. Is it a human being? "Life" has no rights in America. Human beings have those rights.

People who are pro choice aren't saying it's not a person until its umbilical cord is cut. They aren't advocating late term abortions. I don't believe you can get an abortion after the 3rd month.

Not every pregnancy happens out of a lack of responsibility. Many conceptions happen with the use of contraceptive. Women can get pregnant from a rape. Sometimes that rape happens by the husband or boyfriend.

Abstinence is not the answer. Lots of education and access to birth control would help.

Why is the fetus so cherished but the life after birth not considered at all. And how about that death penalty? Is that okay with you? How would you justify that?

Anti choice is about keeping women under control. Keeping the gap open.

What I choose to do with my body is between me and my God. You should not get to decide how I live my life.

I suggest getting on the band wagon to prevent child abuse and spousal abuse. Get our inner city kids educated. Get people off drugs. If you help people and educate them then the abortion rates will naturally drop.
It's not the wealthy and educated who are getting abortions, it's the poor and uneducated and those who don't have access to birth controll.

Do you think it's fun to get an abortion? Do you think it's an easy decision? No, Never.

Therefore, the right to privacy (encompassing the right to choose termination) must be upheld.
Why should that stop at fetuses? Why not extend it to all life: as long as you can kill someone with no one finding out about it, it's ok? If you kill a living human who did nothing wrong, you're murdering it.

Furthermore, those fetuses that've been terminated should be open to scientific research, particularly embryonic stem cell research. The loss of (what I consider to be) one human life should at least reap the benefit of saving another life.

I agree with you on this part. However, the counterargument is still valid: "Let's suppose at the end of World War Two, the Allies found a bunch of dead Jews in concentration camps. Now suppose they said "Well, the loss of one human life should at least reap some benefit," so they cut off their skin and used it for lampshades. Similarly, if you were interred in a cemetary, would you want someone digging up your corpse, chopping it up, looking at it, prodding at it, in the name of science?

Anti choice is about keeping women under control. Keeping the gap open.
Who would be seeking to keep women under control? Women are slightly more anti-abortion than men are.

But is it a human being? It has none of the distinguishing characteristics of a human being, and it is virtually indistinguishable from any other group of cells early on. The fact is that it is not agreed upon at which point you can call a fetus a human. It is simply not proven yet. So, until it is, it is a matter of belief, and no one, in my mind, has the right to enforce their beliefs upon anohter.
A thalodomide baby doesn't have much in the way of humanness to it. Helen Keller didn't have as many human characteristics as a "normal" human. So are they not alive? Are their differences justifying removing their right to life?

Who would be seeking to keep women under control? Women are slightly more anti-abortion than men are.
Do you really think so? :p

Either way this goes, I have to put in my thanks to Sdaeriji and Franciscus for not basing their legislative and political opinions on their faith. Until you can prove your point (as some can) without your religious belief structure, you have no right to enforce those beliefs on others. Unfortunately, that is what the majority of pro-lifers do or are attempting to do.

A thalodomide baby doesn't have much in the way of humanness to it. Helen Keller didn't have as many human characteristics as a "normal" human. So are they not alive? Are their differences justifying removing their right to life?

You're just getting ridiculous now. You have to accept that your definition of a fetus being a human being is not 100% agreed upon, even in the scientific community. If you don't accept that, then there's no way we can have an intelligent discussion. Now, if you do accept that, then you must realize that since it is not completely determinable, then the humanity of a fetus is a matter of belief, i.e. you believe it is a human, I do not. And I am of the opinion that my beliefs and your beliefs and everyone else's beliefs have no business being enforced upon someone who does not share them.

The question of when the embryo is considered to be a human is quite more complicated than that.
Yes, the DNA of both parents are there and the embyro (i'm implying to the early stages of development, like until the third month, after which abortion is unadvisible anyway)) is "alive", but it is by no means the same as a formed baby.
It has no gender, no brain functions, infact there is nothing determined about it yet so comparing it to a level similar to seed and egg is understandable.
And on that level it is the parents choice how to use it.
Of course I'm not implying some frivoleus and unresponcible actions, like using abortion as a mean of contraception or quick solve to an issue.
But when all the facts are carefully considered and birth concludes with severe loss of quality of life, health and psychological state of the parents and the child, there is a justification for abortion.
So, I am "pro" in situations of children giving birth to children, cases of rape, serius physical condisionts and danger to the life of the parrent.

You're just getting ridiculous now. You have to accept that your definition of a fetus being a human being is not 100% agreed upon, even in the scientific community. If you don't accept that, then there's no way we can have an intelligent discussion. Now, if you do accept that, then you must realize that since it is not completely determinable, then the humanity of a fetus is a matter of belief, i.e. you believe it is a human, I do not. And I am of the opinion that my beliefs and your beliefs and everyone else's beliefs have no business being enforced upon someone who does not share them.
What's not human about it? A fetus is the same as a comatose person in a hospital who needs a feeding tube. The only difference is that the fetus has more control of its muscles.

A thalodomide baby doesn't have much in the way of humanness to it. Helen Keller didn't have as many human characteristics as a "normal" human. So are they not alive? Are their differences justifying removing their right to life?
This may sound silly, but I believe there are different levels of human life. Everything is not cut and dry "human or not human".

For instance, a newly fertilized egg cell is NOT equal to a full grown adult. I don't know what rationale you can have to consider a single cell to be entirely equal in worth to a full grown human.

All the time I hear anti-abortion folks saying "look at the beating heart! Look at it respond to stimuli! Look at the primitive spinal cord! Look at it's little hand clasp!"

But I have yet to hear anyone say "Look at the zygote floating around!"

Do you really think so? :p
Yes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Have fun

What's not human about it? A fetus is the same as a comatose person in a hospital who needs a feeding tube. The only difference is that the fetus has more control of its muscles.

No, it's really not. A fetus early on would be barely recognizable as a human. It shares almost none of the features of a human being.

This may sound silly, but I believe there are different levels of human life. Everything is not cut and dry "human or not human".

For instance, a newly fertilized egg cell is NOT equal to a full grown adult. I don't know what rationale you can have to consider a single cell to be entirely equal in worth to a full grown human.

All the time I hear anti-abortion folks saying "look at the beating heart! Look at it respond to stimuli! Look at the primitive spinal cord! Look at it's little hand clasp!"

But I have yet to hear anyone say "Look at the zygote floating around!"
Is a caterpillar not a butterfly? The species and genus are the same, the DNA is the same, and they progress the same, but are they different? They look different, and do different things, but is a caterpillar the same organism as a butterfly? Or upon metamorphosis, does it's central nervous system suddenly rewire, and it become new life?

No, it's really not. A fetus early on would be barely recognizable as a human. It shares almost none of the features of a human being.
So when does a fetus become a human? One month? Eight months? 18 years? You're being arbitrary.

Yes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Have fun
Wow. That goes against everything I have seen so far. Sorry for the condescending attitude. I'm gonna do some googling now...

So when does a fetus become a human? One month? Eight months? 18 years? You're being arbitrary.

Stop being so ridiculous. Of course not 18 years, you know this, you're just trying to be an ass. Once it leaves the womb, and is alive independent of its mother, it is a human being. But while it is still in the womb, it is debatable. There is no completely, 100% agreed upon point where a fetus is definitively a human being. So it becomes a matter of personal belief. And I don't think that you or I have any right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do based on our beliefs.

Is a caterpillar not a butterfly? The species and genus are the same, the DNA is the same, and they progress the same, but are they different? They look different, and do different things, but is a caterpillar the same organism as a butterfly? Or upon metamorphosis, does it's central nervous system suddenly rewire, and it become new life?
Comparing to animals is not helpful, as we (well, all of us except for PETA) believe animals are not life (life in the sense that it is wrong to take that life).

But I'll go with the metaphor. In that case, do you think a butterfly egg is the same as a butterfly?

The point I'm trying to make, is that anti-abortion people jump on fetuses, which exude certain human traits and may have slightly functioning brains, but COMPLETELY bypass defending zygotes, except to say "life begins at conception" which I see no reason to believe. A zygote is a single cell, and I believe it is VERY different from a full grown human.

The state shouldn't decide on religious an moral grounds. Women should have the right to make the choice themselves. If they don't want to get an abortion for religious reasons, so be it. But nobody has the right to tell a woman she can't have abort a pre-24 week old foetus.

Wow, my side of the argument is woefully under represented. I'm pro-choice because, regardless of my beliefs on the moment a fetus becomes "alive", and it is very debatable, I don't think I have any right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion because I don't believe in them.

The term "pro-choice" is misleading. In all but a very very few instances, a woman is pregnant because of a choice she made. Unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible. Not to mention that the same unprotected sex that creates a baby is also what spreads STD. I-R-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E !
It isn't possible to give the right to choose to all parties involved as the baby has no vote in the matter as to whether it lives or dies. If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?

Stop being so ridiculous. Of course not 18 years, you know this, you're just trying to be an ass. Once it leaves the womb, and is alive independent of its mother, it is a human being. But while it is still in the womb, it is debatable. There is no completely, 100% agreed upon point where a fetus is definitively a human being. So it becomes a matter of personal belief. And I don't think that you or I have any right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do based on our beliefs.
I don't know this. An 18 year old doesn't have all the traits and abilities of a 23 year old. They're different. You're arbitrarily saying that once a fetus is born it's "human enough," to be allowed to live. What if a woman was giving birth, but held it in. Clearly there is no physical difference between that child an already born one, since it would have been born itself. However, you're saying there's some imaginary fundamental difference between them.

The term "pro-choice" is misleading. In all but a very very few instances, a woman is pregnant because of a choice she made. Unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible. Not to mention that the same unprotected sex that creates a baby is also what spreads STD. I-R-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E !
It isn't possible to give the right to choose to all parties involved as the baby has no vote in the matter as to whether it lives or dies. If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?

Because it isn't a child.

The term "pro-choice" is misleading. In all but a very very few instances, a woman is pregnant because of a choice she made. Unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible. Not to mention that the same unprotected sex that creates a baby is also what spreads STD. I-R-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E !
It isn't possible to give the right to choose to all parties involved as the baby has no vote in the matter as to whether it lives or dies. If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?
You are confusing the terms "baby" and "child" with fetus.

And in any case, arguing this point totally depends on whether you think a fetus is life. If it is life, then the mother has no right to kill it. If it is not life, then the mother has every right to do what she wants.

Comparing to animals is not helpful, as we (well, all of us except for PETA) believe animals are not life (life in the sense that it is wrong to take that life).

But I'll go with the metaphor. In that case, do you think a butterfly egg is the same as a butterfly?

The point I'm trying to make, is that anti-abortion people jump on fetuses, which exude certain human traits and may have slightly functioning brains, but COMPLETELY bypass defending zygotes, except to say "life begins at conception" which I see no reason to believe. A zygote is a single cell, and I believe it is VERY different from a full grown human.
Yes, an egg is. It has the same genetic material as a butterfly, the same genus and species, and will become a butterfly in time.

Yes, an egg is. It has the same genetic material as a butterfly, the same genus and species, and will become a butterfly in time.
You can take any human skin cell, with the same genetic material, the same genus and species, and clone it, and it will become a human in time. Therefore every single cell in your body has the potential to become life.

Potential life is meaningless. I'm more concerned with actual life.

You alternately argue a fetus will become a human, and then backtrack and say it is already a human.

You have to pick one.

A) A fetus will become a human. Then it is not a human at the moment, and is thus worth as much as any other human cell.

B) A fetus is already human. This is open to debate. It exudes certain human characteristics. However, you will be hard pressed to prove that a single cell zygote (newly fertilized egg) is actually a human.

I don't know this. An 18 year old doesn't have all the traits and abilities of a 23 year old. They're different. You're arbitrarily saying that once a fetus is born it's "human enough," to be allowed to live. What if a woman was giving birth, but held it in. Clearly there is no physical difference between that child an already born one, since it would have been born itself. However, you're saying there's some imaginary fundamental difference between them.

No, I'm saying that once a fetus is born it is recognized as a human being by the government and therefore is granted all the rights that humans enjoy. But before that, it is not legally recognized, and since there is no completely accepted scientific definition of when it becomes a human being, it becomes a matter of your personal beliefs. I don't know how many times I can say this.

Yes, an egg is. It has the same genetic material as a butterfly, the same genus and species, and will become a butterfly in time.

But is it a butterfly? Not will it become a butterfly, but is it a butterfly.

You can take any human skin cell, with the same genetic material, the same genus and species, and clone it, and it will become a human in time. Therefore every single cell in your body has the potential to become life.
You're overcomplicating it. You could take a bunch of base pairs and combine them, and create a human. Or you could kill someone by simply removing their skin cells. Either way is abstracting the issue. A skin cell is not meant to become a human, and barring a great perversion of the natural process it never will be. A zygote exists solely to become a human, a skin cell has another purpose entirely. An egg exists to become a butterfly.

Potential life is meaningless. I'm more concerned with actual life.
Nonliving things cannot be killed. Fetuses can be killed.

You alternately argue a fetus will become a human, and then backtrack and say it is already a human.
I say it will become a fully functional member of society, which seems to be the only life you value, but that it is still human, just not a useful one.

You have to pick one.

B) A fetus is already human. This is open to debate. It exudes certain human characteristics. However, you will be hard pressed to prove that a single cell zygote (newly fertilized egg) is actually a human.
No one exudes all characteristics of all humans. You're simply saying characteristics of A-C are better than D-E.

No, I'm saying that once a fetus is born it is recognized as a human being by the government and therefore is granted all the rights that humans enjoy. But before that, it is not legally recognized, and since there is no completely accepted scientific definition of when it becomes a human being, it becomes a matter of your personal beliefs. I don't know how many times I can say this.
Your definition of birth is your personal belief. It is arbitrary.

Your definition of birth is your personal belief. It is arbitrary.

No, it is scientifically proven.

No, it is scientifically proven.
No it isn't. If you're saying a child that is born is alive, then that same child is also alive if you stick him back in the womb. If the two children are identically in every single aspect, then they must both be alive, nonliving, or dead. You just say that a child that is born is "human enough."

You're overcomplicating it. You could take a bunch of base pairs and combine them, and create a human. Or you could kill someone by simply removing their skin cells. Either way is abstracting the issue. A skin cell is not meant to become a human, and barring a great perversion of the natural process it never will be. A zygote exists solely to become a human, a skin cell has another purpose entirely. An egg exists to become a butterfly.
Well, now you are arguing "purpose" and that I have no answer to. Are test-tube babies also "perversions"? This really comes down to personal beliefs, as well as whatever religion you follow. Christianity is generally against most reproductive technologies, whereas Islam has no problem with it (they don't believe life begins at fertlization).

Nonliving things cannot be killed. Fetuses can be killed.
Just cause something can be killed does not make it life (life in the sense that it is wrong to take it). Say a person's brain entirely dies, but the other organs are kept functioning through a machine. It would obviously not be wrong to just kill what's left.

I say it will become a fully functional member of society, which seems to be the only life you value, but that it is still human, just not a useful one.
Again, I don't care whether or not it will become a fully functional member of society, any one of my skin cells could do the same through cloning. The only life I value is thinking sentient human life. Anything else and we are just animals. Of course, the point in a human's development in which we reach that level is entirely subjective and is the point of much contention. I have no answers, but I argue against the extreme of banning early abortions because a zygote is clearly not a human.

No one exudes all characteristics of all humans. You're simply saying characteristics of A-C are better than D-E.
True, but zygotes exhibit NO characteristics of humans. A zygote is as human as any other cell in your body, the only difference is that it grows into a human on its own, whereas other cells require a little technology to grow into a human.

What if a woman was giving birth, but held it in.

I meant to point this out earlier. This shows a profound misunderstanding of child labor, if you think a woman can just hold it in like if she had to pee or something.

Your definition of birth is your personal belief. It is arbitrary.
Rougly 66-90% of all fertalized eggs are not born as humans naturally. Artificial abortion is a very very very small number compaired to what occurs naturally.

I meant to point this out earlier. This shows a profound misunderstanding of child labor, if you think a woman can just hold it in like if she had to pee or something.
No it doesn't. It's what EMT's do to stop a breech presentation. You get a woman to lie on her back with her pelvis elevated, and it buys you some time. Just holding holding in urine buys you some time.

Rougly 66-90% of all fertalized eggs are not born as humans naturally. Artificial abortion is a very very very small number compaired to what occurs naturally.
What does that have to do with anything? 90% of adult human deaths are due to natural causes...

Because it isn't a child.

Yes, it is, in one stage of human development. If a child is disposable based on its ability to be independent, then can a parent "abort" their screaming 2 year old, or their destructive 9 year old, or their smart mouthed 13 year old?

Abortion is just another way that our society harbors the lack of responsibility. Pregnant-abort. Burn yourself with a cup of coffee-sue McD. Fat-sue fast food restaurants. Broke your arm in a wreck-sue the other driver for permanently crippling you. Get an F on a test you didn't study for-change the grading system so non-achievers are not mentally scarred. Refuse to work and support your family-draw public entitlements and teach your kids and their kids to do the same.

As for unwanted children being abused and neglected. Ever noticed how many people are on adoption waiting lists and will pay huge sums of money for a baby to adopt?

The DNA is human. The creature is human. If you think that just because a fetus doesn't resemble a fully formed human, then you have never taken a good look at a lot of people over the age of 80.

Yes, it is, in one stage of human development. If a child is disposable based on its ability to be independent, then can a parent "abort" their screaming 2 year old, or their destructive 9 year old, or their smart mouthed 13 year old?

Abortion is just another way that our society harbors the lack of responsibility. Pregnant-abort. Burn yourself with a cup of coffee-sue McD. Fat-sue fast food restaurants. Broke your arm in a wreck-sue the other driver for permanently crippling you. Get an F on a test you didn't study for-change the grading system so non-achievers are not mentally scarred. Refuse to work and support your family-draw public entitlements and teach your kids and their kids to do the same.

As for unwanted children being abused and neglected. Ever noticed how many people are on adoption waiting lists and will pay huge sums of money for a baby to adopt?

The DNA is human. The creature is human. If you think that just because a fetus doesn't resemble a fully formed human, then you have never taken a good look at a lot of people over the age of 80.


DNA != human. Just because you have human DNA, that does not make you human. Your cell has all the DNA needed to create life, given the proper stimuli, yet we do not consider all the dead skin cells to be human beings. An undifferentated blob of cells IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

Just so you know, I think the birthing process is pretty arbitrary to determining whether or not a fetus is life. I do not believe a fetus is not alive, then suddenly alive after being born. The point I am trying to make is that life comes about slowly, with no discernible point. Anyone who tries to set a point of life/non-life (such as fertlization, end of the 1st Trimester, end of the 2nd Trimester, birth) is oversimplifying, I believe.

I only support it for rape cases. If you wanted to have sex and you did. Then you should take responsibility for it.

What does that have to do with anything? 90% of adult human deaths are due to natural causes...
Since when have we morned the death of a discarded fertalized egg? So many of them die anyway that A, heaven's getting mighty crowded, and B, it really doesn't matter in the end.

Abortion is just another way that our society harbors the lack of responsibility. Pregnant-abort. Burn yourself with a cup of coffee-sue McD. Fat-sue fast food restaurants. Broke your arm in a wreck-sue the other driver for permanently crippling you. Get an F on a test you didn't study for-change the grading system so non-achievers are not mentally scarred. Refuse to work and support your family-draw public entitlements and teach your kids and their kids to do the same.
So I assume you support abortion in case of rape? (since rape has nothing to do with personal responsibility?)

Since when have we morned the death of a discarded fertalized egg? So many of them die anyway that A, heaven's getting mighty crowded, and B, it really doesn't matter in the end.
Since when can we stop it? We can't stop cancer, we can stop car wrecks.

No it isn't. If you're saying a child that is born is alive, then that same child is also alive if you stick him back in the womb. If the two children are identically in every single aspect, then they must both be alive, nonliving, or dead. You just say that a child that is born is "human enough."

I never said that a fetus isn't alive. Never. I said the moment when it becomes a human being is debatable. But what isn't debatable, at least from a legal standpoint, is that it becomes a human being at least after it is birthed. After the child is born, it is a human being, with all the benefits. The debate comes from the problem that some people think it is a human being before that, and some do not. And since it cannot be conclusively proven whether or not a fetus becomes a "human" before then, then it is not afforded legal rights the way a human being is.

No it doesn't. It's what EMT's do to stop a breech presentation. You get a woman to lie on her back with her pelvis elevated, and it buys you some time. Just holding holding in urine buys you some time.

That's different from just holding it in. That buys you some time; but that child is still going to be born, like it or not.

Since when can we stop it? We can't stop cancer, we can stop car wrecks.
Yes, we sure as hell can, but we don't. Put your mind to it.

I never said that a fetus isn't alive. Never. I said the moment when it becomes a human being is debatable. But what isn't debatable, at least from a legal standpoint, is that it becomes a human being at least after it is birthed. After the child is born, it is a human being, with all the benefits. The debate comes from the problem that some people think it is a human being before that, and some do not. And since it cannot be conclusively proven whether or not a fetus becomes a "human" before then, then it is not afforded legal rights the way a human being is.
You can't say it becomes human after then either. It's like any thing that occurs in life, wisdom teeth, menstruation, secondary sex characteristics, it's just a point in development. Why not say that a human isn't a human until reproductive age?

That's different from just holding it in. That buys you some time; but that child is still going to be born, like it or not.
Ok, maybe I didn't explain that well.
1) Child is about to born at time X.
2) You hold it in for a few minutes using that method, until it is born at time Y.
Now, between time X and Y, is it human? It could have been born at X, and if it had it would have been exactly the same as if it had been born at time Y.

Does life begin at conception or at the first breath, do either really justify the murder of a potential human being?
Is it right that we are willing to sacrifice life for life?
wow, i can have this debate in my sleep...

1. life does not "begin" at any point; it's called the human LIFE cycle for a reason. at no point does non-living tissue become living, and at no point does non-human tissue become human tissue.
2. you cannot murder anything other than a human being, according to the definition of murder. a potential human cannot be "murdered" any more than a pile of unassembled bicycle parts can be used to win the Tour de France. potentiality and actuality are not, in any way, equal.
3. we quite often sacrifice life for life. in fact, you are doing so at this very moment, by digesting living material to prolong your own life.
4. whether or not a fetus is a human person is utterly irrelevant to the debate of abortion rights, so let's just skip that whole bit, shall we?

Yes, we sure as hell can, but we don't. Put your mind to it.
We can stop spontaneous abortion and miscarriages? That's news to me.

We can stop spontaneous abortion and miscarriages? That's news to me.
Can we? Sure. Do we? No.


However, that isn't much the point, first off, calling a blob of undifferentiated cells a human being is incorrect, and are not given the legal protections therein, and second, the number of abortions are miniscule compared to the number of natural abortions that there are, and making abortion illegal would more then likely drive up the number of abortions/number of people killed.

Can we? Sure. Do we? No.
Clearly no women in your family have ever miscarried, or you wouldn't be so ignorant of medical technology.

However, that isn't much the point, first off, calling a blob of undifferentiated cells a human being is incorrect, and are not given the legal protections therein, and second, the number of abortions are miniscule compared to the number of natural abortions that there are, and making abortion illegal would more then likely drive up the number of abortions/number of people killed.
Why on earth would illegalizing abortion make it go up?

Yes, it is, in one stage of human development. If a child is disposable based on its ability to be independent, then can a parent "abort" their screaming 2 year old, or their destructive 9 year old, or their smart mouthed 13 year old?

No, no, no, no, no. Once a child is born, it is a human being, with all the rights afforded to human beings. That kind of argument is just absurd.


Abortion is just another way that our society harbors the lack of responsibility. Pregnant-abort. Burn yourself with a cup of coffee-sue McD. Fat-sue fast food restaurants. Broke your arm in a wreck-sue the other driver for permanently crippling you. Get an F on a test you didn't study for-change the grading system so non-achievers are not mentally scarred. Refuse to work and support your family-draw public entitlements and teach your kids and their kids to do the same.


Regardless, and I do agree that abortions are massively abused, it shouldn't matter. The point is that regardless of your or my opinions on the matter, they should not have any bearing on the decision making process of someone else


As for unwanted children being abused and neglected. Ever noticed how many people are on adoption waiting lists and will pay huge sums of money for a baby to adopt?

Have you ever noticed the hundreds of thousands of children awaiting adoption because there aren't enough people that want them. Most people are very picky about what kind of children they want to adopt. The adoption agencies are extremely crowded.


The DNA is human. The creature is human. If you think that just because a fetus doesn't resemble a fully formed human, then you have never taken a good look at a lot of people over the age of 80.

But every cell in my body has human DNA, but they are not all individually human.

Listen, I personally disagree with abortions except if the mother will absolutely die if the child is carried to term. But my opinions on abortion should have no bearing on anyone else's decisions regarding abortion. If someone else wants to get an abortion, my belief that they are wrong shouldn't prevent her from getting one. That's what I think.

You can't say it becomes human after then either. It's like any thing that occurs in life, wisdom teeth, menstruation, secondary sex characteristics, it's just a point in development. Why not say that a human isn't a human until reproductive age?

Because legally a child is a human as soon as it is born. This is legally defined. Before then, a fetus may or may not be a human; I don't know. And that's the point. Since it's not concretely defined, it boils down to a matter of personal belief.

Ok, maybe I didn't explain that well.
1) Child is about to born at time X.
2) You hold it in for a few minutes using that method, until it is born at time Y.
Now, between time X and Y, is it human? It could have been born at X, and if it had it would have been exactly the same as if it had been born at time Y.

Legally, no.

Clearly no women in your family have ever miscarried, or you wouldn't be so ignorant of medical technology.


Why on earth would illegalizing abortion make it go up?

I don't think it would necessarily make the number of abortions go up, but it would greatly increase the number of women who died during the procedure if they were performed illegally. The amount of abortions that would occur even if it were illegal is probably not that much less than the amount that occur currently. People will always find ways around laws that they find inconvienent. The major drawback to making abortions illegal will be to drive them underground, where proper medical procedures will not be followed and the woman's life will be put at amazing risk.

I don't think it would necessarily make the number of abortions go up, but it would greatly increase the number of women who died during the procedure if they were performed illegally. The amount of abortions that would occur even if it were illegal is probably not that much less than the amount that occur currently. People will always find ways around laws that they find inconvienent. The major drawback to making abortions illegal will be to drive them underground, where proper medical procedures will not be followed and the woman's life will be put at amazing risk.
I really think we're going off on a tangent. If Arammanar believes a fetus is life, then legalizing abortion would be tantamount to state-sponsored murder (much like capital punishment).

The issue is whether that fetus is life or not. Anything else follows from that assumption.

Legally, no.
Legally and actually are quite different. Is that fetus a human or isn't it?

Clearly no women in your family have ever miscarried, or you wouldn't be so ignorant of medical technology.

Can we? If we invested the time and money, sure, do we bother to do so, no.


Why on earth would illegalizing abortion make it go up?
Why on earth would making heroin illegal make the usage of it go up? Why on earth would making pot illegal make the usage of it go up?

Legally and actually are quite different. Is that fetus a human or isn't it?
And completely irrelevent to the point at hand. Legality is the only thing at issue here.

Can we? If we invested the time and money, sure, do we bother to do so, no.
Then why haven't we cured AIDS? We've invested a damn lot of time and money, and the problem is worse, nto better.

Why on earth would making heroin illegal make the usage of it go up? Why on earth would making pot illegal make the usage of it go up?
So by making abortion "taboo," people are going to be more likely to stick coat hangers up their vaginas? Besides, illegal abortions generally result in sterility, so you wouldn't have repeat offenders.

I really think we're going off on a tangent. If Arammanar believes a fetus is life, then legalizing abortion would be tantamount to state-sponsored murder (much like capital punishment).

The issue is whether that fetus is life or not. Anything else follows from that assumption.

I'm not disagreeing that it is alive. That is indisputable. My contention is whether or not a fetus is a human life, and therefore granted rights afforded to human beings.

And completely irrelevent to the point at hand. Legality is the only thing at issue here.
Does life begin at conception or at the first breath, do either really justify the murder of a potential human being?
Is it right that we are willing to sacrifice life for life?

Looks like you lose. And slavery was once legal, does that mean no one should have looked at it objectively?

Legally and actually are quite different. Is that fetus a human or isn't it?

I don't know if it is a human and neither do you, and you would be arrogant to presume that you do. Since we disagree and neither of us can prove ourselves to be correct, why should your opinion take precedence over mine?

I'm not disagreeing that it is alive. That is indisputable. My contention is whether or not a fetus is a human life, and therefore granted rights afforded to human beings.
yes, that is what I mean. It's tricky arguing a 8 month old fetus is not life. But it's very easy to argue a single cell is not life. I'm not out to encourage late term abortions, I'm just attacking the belief that a newly fertilized egg cell is suddenly life.

Besides, illegal abortions generally result in sterility, so you wouldn't have repeat offenders.

This is a horrible, horrible reason to support banning abortion.

I don't know if it is a human and neither do you, and you would be arrogant to presume that you do. Since we disagree and neither of us can prove ourselves to be correct, why should your opinion take precedence over mine?
I say it is, since it's identical to itself at time X. You say it isn't, because...it isn't. I'm not being arrogant, I'm being the only one with a reason for believing what he believes.

This is a horrible, horrible reason to support banning abortion.
It was tongue-in-cheek to something I thought was very poor reasoning.

yes, that is what I mean. It's tricky arguing a 8 month old fetus is not life. But it's very easy to argue a single cell is not life. I'm not out to encourage late term abortions, I'm just attacking the belief that a newly fertilized egg cell is suddenly life.

Well, no. Each cell is technically alive. That is biology. A zygote is alive. But so are my toenails and five o'clock shadow. But they do not qualify as a human being, and therefore are not subject to laws against murder and such. My contention is that since there is disagreement over whether a zygote is a human or not, neither opinion should take precedence, and the default of letting people choose for themselves ought to be.

Well, no. Each cell is technically alive. That is biology. A zygote is alive. But so are my toenails and five o'clock shadow. But they do not qualify as a human being, and therefore are not subject to laws against murder and such. My contention is that since there is disagreement over whether a zygote is a human or not, neither opinion should take precedence, and the default of letting people choose for themselves ought to be.
There was a disagreement for a long time as to whether Blacks were human or not...and we saw the results of that thinking.

I say it is, since it's identical to itself at time X. You say it isn't, because...it isn't. I'm not being arrogant, I'm being the only one with a reason for believing what he believes.

I say it isn't because it is not legally accepted as such.

There was a disagreement for a long time as to whether Blacks were human or not...and we saw the results of that thinking.

Logical fallacy.

I say it isn't because it is not legally accepted as such.
And I'm saying Blacks aren't human because for a long time they weren't accepted as such. And I'm going to ignore all the reason provided to the contrary since I refuse to admit the law might need changing.

There was a disagreement for a long time as to whether Blacks were human or not...and we saw the results of that thinking.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha...biggest logical falacy i have seen in a long time. well done :P.

Logical fallacy.
Shrug, it's very convenient how whenever someone says something that is immediately and easily contradicted they cry "fallacy."

And I'm saying Blacks aren't human because for a long time they weren't accepted as such. And I'm going to ignore all the reason provided to the contrary since I refuse to admit the law might need changing.

Listen, if you're going to continue to be an ass, I'm not going to have this discussion anymore. My reasons are not subject to your approval.

Shrug, it's very convenient how whenever someone says something that is immediately and easily contradicted they cry "fallacy."

No, it's a logical fallacy because the comparison is incorrect.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...biggest logical falacy i have seen in a long time. well done :P.
No it isn't. The argument he's making is that, "Since there is disagreement, we should just let people choose for themselves." I'm making an identical argument.

Listen, if you're going to continue to be an ass, I'm not going to have this discussion anymore. My reasons are not subject to your approval.
YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN A SINGLE REASON. You simply say it is because it is. That's the biggest fallacy imaginable. Why is the child in my example not a human until time Y? Give me one good reason that isn't based on, because.

The term "pro-choice" is misleading. In all but a very very few instances, a woman is pregnant because of a choice she made. Unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible. Not to mention that the same unprotected sex that creates a baby is also what spreads STD. I-R-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E !
It isn't possible to give the right to choose to all parties involved as the baby has no vote in the matter as to whether it lives or dies. If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?

what if it's rape/ should the woman have to go through the whole process because some s of a b raped her no! A fetus is not 100% equal to a living breathing human. you ultra religious losers need to wake up and smell the coffee.

No it isn't. The argument he's making is that, "Since there is disagreement, we should just let people choose for themselves." I'm making an identical argument.

No, you're not. It can be scientifically proven that black people are human beings. You cannot prove that a fetus is a human being.

No, you're not. It can be scientifically proven that black people are human beings. You cannot prove that a fetus is a human being.
Yes you can, by using the same methods you use for Blacks, and all other organisms on earth, genome mapping.

YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN A SINGLE REASON. You simply say it is because it is. That's the biggest fallacy imaginable. Why is the child in my example not a human until time Y? Give me one good reason that isn't based on, because.

I have given a reason. I say I don't know if it is a human or not. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Get it? Can you PROVE that it is a child? No, you cannot. And neither can I.

I have given a reason. I say I don't know if it is a human or not. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Get it? Can you PROVE that it is a child? No, you cannot. And neither can I.
Scientifically, if a child born at X is identical to a child born at Y, then logically it's the same between time X and Y. You claim that you do know a child that is born is human. You claim you can prove it is. I believe I can prove a child is human, now disprove it.

Yes you can, by using the same methods you use for Blacks, and all other organisms on earth, genome mapping.

My feces shares the same genome as me (well, some of it). Does it qualify as a human being? No. Simply sharing the same genome does not necessarily make two things identical. The caterpillar and butterfly example you provided is a great example.

Scientifically, if a child born at X is identical to a child born at Y, then logically it's the same between time X and Y. You claim that you do know a child that is born is human. You claim you can prove it is. I believe I can prove a child is human, now disprove it.

I don't claim to prove that it is. I claim that the legal definition is, and therefore is guaranteed the rights humans are afforded. That is all that matters for determining rights guaranteed. A fetus is not legally defined as a human, so it is not subject to the same laws that a human child is.

My feces shares the same genome as me (well, some of it). Does it qualify as a human being? No. Simply sharing the same genome does not necessarily make two things identical. The caterpillar and butterfly example you provided is a great example.
Your feces do not, they are part of what you ate. They share their genetic material with that.

And completely irrelevent to the point at hand. Legality is the only thing at issue here.

Which makes it precisely the point at hand. It is illegal to take a human's life.

Now to catch up on the last few pages...For the record, I do not support capitol punishment.

As for pulling the plug for life support, that is another issue. That is a decision I and my husband had to make for our daughter. She was not alive anymore, her brain was destroyed, and her body was being maintained by machines. Nothing was ever going to bring her back to life. To compare an un-live person maintained by machines with a growing unborn child supported by its mother's body is not valid.

To compare an unborn child to a dead skin cell is ludicrous. Once the fertilized egg splits, you have a growing, developing, evolving life. Skin cells will develop and slough the old dead ones, but they do not grow into a fully developed person.

As for rape. That's a tough call. The trauma of rape is unimaginable to those who have not suffered it. Again, though, I would have to say abortion is not acceptable. With counseling the mother has a good chance at recovery, but for the unborn child, dead is permanent. Some have delivered their babies conceived by rape and counted them as one thing that made the whole experience bearable. I don't believe I could see the child that way.

When does the unborn child become a human being? When was it anything other than human? As with all animals, the initial start of life bears little visual resemblance to its ultimate form, but that doesn't make it any less a member of that species. You can use terms like zygote, fetus, embryo, undifferentated blob of cells...what matters is species differentation. Therefore, the fetus (or whatever) is human and it is wrong to kill another person.

I don't claim to prove that it is. I claim that the legal definition is, and therefore is guaranteed the rights humans are afforded. That is all that matters for determining rights guaranteed. A fetus is not legally defined as a human, so it is not subject to the same laws that a human child is.
I'm saying it should be defined as such, and given reasons. Why are my reasons wrong?

Your feces do not, they are part of what you ate. They share their genetic material with that.

Well, concievably, some of my cells would be caught up in the "flow".

I'm saying it should be defined as such, and given reasons. Why are my reasons wrong?

Because your reasons, as valid as they are, are not concrete proof. They can not be universally verified. They aren't wrong, but they aren't necessarily right, at least as far as we know.

Which makes it precisely the point at hand. It is illegal to take a human's life.

Now to catch up on the last few pages...For the record, I do not support capitol punishment.

As for pulling the plug for life support, that is another issue. That is a decision I and my husband had to make for our daughter. She was not alive anymore, her brain was destroyed, and her body was being maintained by machines. Nothing was ever going to bring her back to life. To compare an un-live person maintained by machines with a growing unborn child supported by its mother's body is not valid.

To compare an unborn child to a dead skin cell is ludicrous. Once the fertilized egg splits, you have a growing, developing, evolving life. Skin cells will develop and slough the old dead ones, but they do not grow into a fully developed person.

As for rape. That's a tough call. The trauma of rape is unimaginable to those who have not suffered it. Again, though, I would have to say abortion is not acceptable. With counseling the mother has a good chance at recovery, but for the unborn child, dead is permanent. Some have delivered their babies conceived by rape and counted them as one thing that made the whole experience bearable. I don't believe I could see the child that way.

When does the unborn child become a human being? When was it anything other than human? As with all animals, the initial start of life bears little visual resemblance to its ultimate form, but that doesn't make it any less a member of that species. You can use terms like zygote, fetus, embryo, undifferentated blob of cells...what matters is species differentation. Therefore, the fetus (or whatever) is human and it is wrong to kill another person.


Wrong, as zygotes do not display any signs of human life (I.E. if a human being showed those signs, they would be considered legally dead) .

Unless you are claiming that no person is ever brain dead.

As for rape. That's a tough call. The trauma of rape is unimaginable to those who have not suffered it. Again, though, I would have to say abortion is not acceptable. With counseling the mother has a good chance at recovery, but for the unborn child, dead is permanent. Some have delivered their babies conceived by rape and counted them as one thing that made the whole experience bearable. I don't believe I could see the child that way.

I have a friend who was raped and impregnated and had an abortion. She hates that she had an abortion and wishes she didn't. But there are a thousand and one things that remind her of the man (a jealous ex-boyfriend), and whenever she is reminded of what happens, she breaks down and starts crying, and is inconsolable for days. I think if she had had the child, it would be a constant reminder of the trauma. And considering how she reacts to their song or the kind of flower he used to get her, I don't think having the child would have been too healthy for either of them.

Hey guys. I recently wrote a college essay on the topic, so I'll post it here:

The topic of abortion has been controversial since the Supreme Court case of 1973 known as Roe vs. Wade. The people of America are evenly divided on the subject of abortion. My allegiances lie with those opposed to abortion. My own inspection of abortion has led me to one conclusion: abortion is ethically and morally wrong.
In coming to this conclusion, I’ve investigated some of the more common reasons given to keep abortion legal. Most abortion supporters cite the fourteenth amendment as proof that abortion is Constitutional. The amendment states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. While this amendment seems to authorize abortion, the same argument of a woman controlling her own body could be used to justify drug use or prostitution. The amendment could even be stretched to sanction the legalization of marijuana.
Another argument to keep abortion legal is that abortion saves many women’s lives. On the contrary, according to a study by the Family Research Council, the use of abortion for health reasons amounts to only 3% of the total number of abortions per year, and rape and incest account for just 1%. The fact is American law today allows abortion for any reason and for no reason. Only a small percentage falls into hard-case categories that pro-abortion groups have used as a gambit to justify abortion-on-demand.
There are also myriad health ramifications associated with abortion. The procedure has been proven to cause suicidal thoughts in women and several studies have suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer. Abortion is clearly something the body is not used to, so hemorrhaging, infection, sterility and even death may occur. Even abortion providers hate to see repeat abortions. In The American Medical News, a pro-abortion publication, one abortionist said, “I’m going to be honest and say that it’s hard for me [to perform repeat abortions]”.
Think about this hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later, woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A? This scenario incites some troubling questions. Does a fetus have to be born before being called a human? Must this organism first be assigned a name and social security number to be considered a person? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, our society must carefully reevaluate our morals.
Abortion frustrates me even more simply because there is an alternative: adoption. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, nearly 40% American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child. Since Roe vs. Wade, over 40 million abortions have been performed. Adoption could have easily saved every one of those aborted children. Instead, we have justified killing innocent children out of our desire for convenience.
People want to enjoy the pleasures of extramarital sex, but do not want to face its consequences. Families all across America are ready for adoption. So why do we kill infants while others are waiting for them? Will we be prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions now and in eternity? I must say that I am unsure of the future of abortion, but I know that I’ll do my part to encourage alternatives to abortion.

Abortion is most definatly be allowed after rape. Besides, the world is heavily overpopulated folks and if a 15 year old is raped and becomes pregnant, she won't be much a mother, given she's older than a child.

what if it's rape/ should the woman have to go through the whole process because some s of a b raped her no! A fetus is not 100% equal to a living breathing human. you ultra religious losers need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Ultra-religious or not is not the issue. The issue is whether a mother has the "right" to destroy her unborn child. The argument persists because people differ on when they accept that the unborn child is a living human.

As for my faith, I am not a loser. I believe that it is not my right to determine who and when anyone should die. That is the job of the One who created me. You know what a loser is? Someone who calls names when they don't have a reasoned argument.

Think about this hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later, woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A? This scenario incites some troubling questions. Does a fetus have to be born before being called a human? Must this organism first be assigned a name and social security number to be considered a person? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, our society must carefully reevaluate our morals.

Addressing this specific point only, no, woman B would not be allowed to kill her child, but woman A would be allowed to abort hers. The justification for this is that once a child is born, it is legally regarded as a human being, and is subject to all laws pertaining to human beings, but while a fetus is still in the womb, it is not subject to said laws. Disagree with that all you wish, but it is still the current legal situation.

I have given a reason. I say I don't know if it is a human or not. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Get it? Can you PROVE that it is a child? No, you cannot. And neither can I.

Yes, it can be proven. If the "fetus" is maintained with machines outside its mother's body, it will grow into a visually recognizable human. Just because what you see is not what you think a human should look like, doesn't make the fetus any less human.

Wrong, as zygotes do not display any signs of human life (I.E. if a human being showed those signs, they would be considered legally dead) .

Unless you are claiming that no person is ever brain dead.

Obviously that is the situation I cited about my daughter. The difference is that she would never develop another brain. A zygote, however, will develop a functioning brain.

Yes, it can be proven. If the "fetus" is maintained with machines outside its mother's body, it will grow into a visually recognizable human. Just because what you see is not what you think a human should look like, doesn't make the fetus any less human.

If the fetus is born, then it becomes a human child in the view of the law. It may not in actuallity be any less human, but in the eyes of the law, it is. That is a simple fact. And until there can be a scientifically determined moment when a fetus becomes a human, whether it be conception, 2nd trimester, birth, or the second Friday after the first Tuesday of the 4th month of pregnancy, then the law is always going to be biased towards one viewpoint or another. That is why I think abortions should be legal until there is a scientifically proven point where a fetus is a human, because until then it is legislating morality, and that I think is wrong.

Consider this scenario which is far more common than most people know. The abortionist successfully delivers the fetus from the mother, but it is still alive. At this point the fetus is allowed to die from lack of medical attention. From the pro-abortion points made here, this would qualify as a human being and the abortionist just committed murder. How many fetuses would be delivered alive if they weren't hacked to pieces or poisoned with saline before being removed from their mother's bodies? ALL of them. How long they survive after their removal depends on what stage of development they have reached.

As for legislating morality, all of our laws are based on morality...our acceptance of what is right and what is wrong.

How many fetuses would be delivered alive if they weren't hacked to pieces or poisoned with saline before being removed from their mother's bodies?

Well, if they are still in the mother's bodies, that's still in the process of abortion.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of partial-birth abortions either.

Well, if they are still in the mother's bodies, that's still in the process of abortion.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of partial-birth abortions either.

I'm not referring to just partial birth abortions. A common form of abortion is to inject saline into the uterus to start early labor. Another is to insert a tool to scrape the uterus' walls to dislodge the fetus and this has the unpleasant side effect of dismembering and hacking a living, feeling unborn child.

I'm not referring to just partial birth abortions. A common form of abortion is to inject saline into the uterus to start early labor. Another is to insert a tool to scrape the uterus' walls to dislodge the fetus and this has the unpleasant side effect of dismembering and hacking a living, feeling unborn child.

Yeah, abortion is disgusting and morally reprehensible. According to me.

Sporkian gave the text of an essay that he/she :confused: obviously did a lot of research for. Let me quote some of the statistics from that essay:

Another argument to keep abortion legal is that abortion saves many women’s lives. On the contrary, according to a study by the Family Research Council, the use of abortion for health reasons amounts to only 3% of the total number of abortions per year, and rape and incest account for just 1%. The fact is American law today allows abortion for any reason and for no reason. Only a small percentage falls into hard-case categories that pro-abortion groups have used as a gambit to justify abortion-on-demand

How can we as "civilized" people accept the barbarism of abortion?

Obviously that is the situation I cited about my daughter. The difference is that she would never develop another brain. A zygote, however, will develop a functioning brain.
So will a skin cell if cloned.

So will a skin cell if cloned.

We're not talking about the artifical creation of life through cloning. We're talking about the natural creation of life with a mother and a father and all of the necessary activity required. Which brings another interesting question to mind. If a person is lab cloned, does that person have rights as a human being?

Why do people start such polarizing threads here? What earthly good does this serve aside from beating someone over the head with a point of view they're not going to listen to?

Does the person that started this thread actually believe this is going to start a constructive debate? Does he/she think this is going to get people to acknowledge points made by those that disagree with them?

There are only four words to describe such an uncompromising issue: "I'm right, you're wrong."

Please stop these useless threads.

Sporkian gave the text of an essay that he/she :confused: obviously did a lot of research for. Let me quote some of the statistics from that essay:

Another argument to keep abortion legal is that abortion saves many women’s lives. On the contrary, according to a study by the Family Research Council, the use of abortion for health reasons amounts to only 3% of the total number of abortions per year, and rape and incest account for just 1%. The fact is American law today allows abortion for any reason and for no reason. Only a small percentage falls into hard-case categories that pro-abortion groups have used as a gambit to justify abortion-on-demand

How can we as "civilized" people accept the barbarism of abortion?

Because it is only your opinion that abortion is civilized and barbaric. Not everyone shares that opinion, and it is not your right to presume your opinions are more valid, or to try to enforce them upon those who do not share them.

Why do people start such polarizing threads here? What earthly good does this serve aside from beating someone over the head with a point of view they're not going to listen to?

Does the person that started this thread actually believe this is going to start a constructive debate? Does he/she think this is going to get people to acknowledge points made by those that disagree with them?

There are only four words to describe such an uncompromising issue: "I'm right, you're wrong."

Please stop these useless threads.

Don't think you're the only one who's ever had this "revelation".

Why do people start such polarizing threads here? What earthly good does this serve aside from beating someone over the head with a point of view they're not going to listen to?

Does the person that started this thread actually believe this is going to start a constructive debate? Does he/she think this is going to get people to acknowledge points made by those that disagree with them?

There are only four words to describe such an uncompromising issue: "I'm right, you're wrong."

Please stop these useless threads.

To you it is useless. To others it is of great interest and the discussion of differing views gives us insight and understanding. If you don't like debate then visit the threads based on your favorite pie or something.

My clock says 8 but my body says 9 and either way 4 is awfully early.

Nite!

We're not talking about the artifical creation of life through cloning. We're talking about the natural creation of life with a mother and a father and all of the necessary activity required.
Tell me what the difference is between "artificial" and "natural" creating of life. Do you think test tube babies are "unnatural"?

Which brings another interesting question to mind. If a person is lab cloned, does that person have rights as a human being?
What do you think? :)

Nite!
Oh well...someone else can pick up on this if they want...

To you it is useless. To others it is of great interest and the discussion of differing views gives us insight and understanding. If you don't like debate then visit the threads based on your favorite pie or something.

Oh no no, I love debate. I will debate someone on Kerry/Bush till the cows come home. THAT's a debatable topic. There's give and take involved.

To start a thread on an uncompromising issue such as abortion is to start a thread in which debate is impossible.

If you find one post in this thread where an anti-abortionist says "Wow, I guess abortion IS ok under this circumstance," or where a pro-abortionist reads a post then says "Hmm, I guess there COULD be reason to oppose it," I'll buy you lunch.

I honestly don't think time or dependancy is important, but more consciousness. Not that it isn't human, but isn't a person. Human's don't get rights, people do. Like black people didn't get rights until the whole civil war thing ended. Religion shouldn't have an effect in debates, given it is a debatable topic, but it does.

I am male, will never know what it is like to be pregnant, will never know how hard the decision to have an abortion is, and find it arrogant in the extreme that anyone would find it reasonable to tell someone what they can do with their own bodies.

If pressed I would be against late-term abortions, but I realize that that is my own opinion/belief and should not be a law someone else has to follow.

Putting aside the question of legality (which has been put forward too many times in this thread... but one more time: Legally a fetus is not considered a human being), try this one: A woman's womb is a part of her body. Who else has the right to tell her if she wants elective surgery? Where would that end? Plastic surgery? False teeth? Hip replacement? I realize this becomes facetious, but the main point is no one should be able to legisate what a person can do with their own body. That would be the most invasive government policy and a grievous destruction of privacy.

I honestly don't think time or dependancy is important, but more consciousness. Not that it isn't human, but isn't a person. Human's don't get rights, people do. Like black people didn't get rights until the whole civil war thing ended. Religion shouldn't have an effect in debates, given it is a debatable topic, but it does.
Actually, black people were still fighting for their civil rights 100 years after the American Civil War ended.

Sporkian gave the text of an essay that he/she :confused: obviously did a lot of research for. Let me quote some of the statistics from that essay:

Another argument to keep abortion legal is that abortion saves many women’s lives. On the contrary, according to a study by the Family Research Council, the use of abortion for health reasons amounts to only 3% of the total number of abortions per year, and rape and incest account for just 1%. The fact is American law today allows abortion for any reason and for no reason. Only a small percentage falls into hard-case categories that pro-abortion groups have used as a gambit to justify abortion-on-demand

How can we as "civilized" people accept the barbarism of abortion?

Ok you do realise that you are referencing a flawed argument that has no logical relationship to the conclusion you then tag on the end of it? Have another look at the paragraph you quote....the argument is not sound because in the first place the material premise is as a matter of fact not true.

Tell me what the difference is between "artificial" and "natural" creating of life. Do you think test tube babies are "unnatural"?

There is not in every instance a difference. When humans create life there is no difference. If humans are not a material factor, then there is a difference (ie that humans are not a material factor).

If you care so much about the unborn, take it out of it's unwilling mother's womb and take care of it yourself.

If you care so much about the unborn, take it out of it's unwilling mother's womb and take care of it yourself.
If you care about cardiac patients, why don't you donate your heart?

Is a caterpillar not a butterfly? The species and genus are the same, the DNA is the same, and they progress the same, but are they different? They look different, and do different things, but is a caterpillar the same organism as a butterfly? Or upon metamorphosis, does it's central nervous system suddenly rewire, and it become new life?

Well, bar the fact that the re-wiring occurs during the lavae stage while in the coccoon, yes, this is exactly what happens. A caterpillar and a butterfly are actually almost entirely different organisms, and mainly only share DNA and the larvae stage with one another.

Well done on using an example that actually proves the point for the other side, while exhibiting your lack of knowledge about caterpillars/butterflies.

=Sporkians
Think about this hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later, woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later each decides she doesn’t want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A? This scenario incites some troubling questions. Does a fetus have to be born before being called a human? Must this organism first be assigned a name and social security number to be considered a person? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, our society must carefully reevaluate our morals.

I was under the impression six-month abortions weren't elective. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

To me, the issue of the infants 'humanity' is totally irrelevent to the issue. In no other case can a legal adult be forced to donate an organ to another, no matter what the context (even if the person needing the donation is their own child who will die without the donation).

No one has yet given me a single reason why pregnent women should be the ONLY exception to this rule.

Oh, except for the unstated opinion that women should be harshly punished for enjoying sex (if they get raped they don't need to be punished by childbirth... only if they enjoyed the sex).

Anti-abortioners seem to be absolutely terrified that if abortions remain legal, women will be out ENJOYING sex because, apparently, they think abortions are some easily and non-traumatic procedure. Well they aren't. No one *wants* an abortion. Most women who need them are either to uneducated to know about contraceptives (or too uneducated to know to stand up and demand the guy wear a condom), or the unfortunate victim of one of those cases when contraception fails.

If you care about cardiac patients, why don't you donate your heart?

You're right, thats *exactly* the same situation. :rolleyes:

And on a lighter note, Myrth is pro-choice! Yay! *celebrates with cake... mmmcake**



*don't mind me, I'm just insane and pick certain people to worship. If you think it's just a mod-status thing you can look up my reactions to Grave n Idle and Bottle and a few other people around.

Having idols makes life fun. Or at least it distracts me from the lack-of-fun parts of life. Haven't found out which yet.

abortion.. mm.. i think it should be allowed for rape victims.

i think late abortion should be absolutly illigal.. yet early abortion.. that i cannot say since its 50-50 for me..

And on a lighter note, Myrth is pro-choice! Yay! *celebrates with cake... mmmcake**



*don't mind me, I'm just insane and pick certain people to worship. If you think it's just a mod-status thing you can look up my reactions to Grave n Idle and Bottle and a few other people around.

Having idols makes life fun. Or at least it distracts me from the lack-of-fun parts of life. Haven't found out which yet.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked.

Celebrating with cake is a cruel and barbaric practice. Civilised people celebrate with lemon meringue,

Quite frankly, I'm shocked.

Celebrating with cake is a cruel and barbaric practice. Civilised people celebrate with lemon meringue,

Butbutbut...

I don't *have* any lemon meringue*. And I do have chocolate cake (mmmChocolate-mud-cake)

Is it less barbaric if I share the cake? *offers a slice of cake*?




*hahaha, what a silly word! Look! The spelling! Ahahahaha**!


**Avoiding studying apparently makes you easily amused. Yay!

Butbutbut...

I don't *have* any lemon meringue*. And I do have chocolate cake (mmmChocolate-mud-cake)

Is it less barbaric if I share the cake? *offers a slice of cake*?



I will not share in this deviant behaviour.

Good day!

I will not share in this deviant behaviour.

Good day!

:(

*puts cake away*

What about cookies and/or biscuits? Or icecream? Or... well, actually, that's all I have in the house.

Le sigh.

I am against abortion (surprise surprise, I am religious :) ). I'd say that it is wrong to kill something that is both ...

a)alive (i.e. displays the 7 life processes)
b)and has a full complement of human DNA, hence making it human

Thus, in my opinion, abortion is wrong. Contraception on the other hand, is OK in my book, as the full complement of human DNA is not present, so the gametes (sex cells) are not human.


OK why, why, why do you ****ing ignorant prolifers continue to insist that it it DNA that makes a human?

By your whacked out logic sentient robot or alien should be considered lower than a human skin cell because "the cell has a full compliment of human DNA".

Every frigin cell in your body (apart from eggs & sperm) has a full compliment of DNA. Using cloning it is even possible to create a human from it. Is having a hair cut then genocide?

Secondly a featus does not show all 7 life processes

Move - yes
Respire - yes
Sense envioment - depends on delopement stage - already by your logic you support abortions upto 3 week abortions are ok
Grow - yes
(self) Reproduce - by your agruement abortion is ok uptill puberty!?!
Excerete wastes - yes
Nurtition - yes

Ok so by this genius its ok to 'abort' so long as the child hasn't hit puberty - way to go for us prochoicers!

Now the thing with pro choice is that is PROCHOICE we don't force people to have abortions, we allow those who want an abortion to do it safely. By outlawing abortion you won't stop it only instead of girls and women aborting safely with sterile, sergical proceedures we'll be back to the dark ages of a bottle of gin and a rusty coat hanger. Abortions have been taking place for the past 6 thousand years at least and have been illeagle or socailly undesirebale for most of that time. You cannot stop it. You can help those who need it get the help they need, or you can relegate it to back alleys and allow mother and child to suffer needlessly.

If you want to educate people - please do people should know all the facts before making a choice as important as abortion, but it must remian a choice (just like volentary euthanasir should become a choice). People (not just women) should know all the facts and consequences of aborting or not aborting and I harbour no delusions in that when making an informed choice more women would choose not to have an abortion but it must, must remain a choice in the name of freedom, of civil liberty, in the name of human inteligence and sentience.

Now if (satan forbid) despite all precautions I got my girlfriend pregent, she has told me she would like to have it an put it up for adoption. Now I have tried to pursade her to get rid of it (in the unlikly event that it does happen) by disproving the myths around abortion, because it would be my child as well. However I have been unsuccessful, so if tomorrow she told me she was pregent and wanted to have it I would support her as much as I could because ultimately its her body - her choice.

We don't force organ donations on people (well ok my nation does on corpses :P). That is to say we don't make every healthy adult donate a kidney because it might save a human life at the expense of some "inconvience" in the same way we don't make every pregent woman have their baby. I'm sure if a prolifer came upto you and said "You don't know me but my friend is dieing, give me your kidney or else its murder" you'd think they where crazy. Their views on abortion are no different. Yes people should hypothetically (for some greater good) donate their kidney to help out brother and sister mankind but it just doesn't happen - and rightly so. It is a choice.

choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice, choice!

Now my voice is giving out so I'm just going to sit here and prod you for a while...

PS: excuse spelling, dsylexic

If you find one post in this thread where an anti-abortionist says "Wow, I guess abortion IS ok under this circumstance," or where a pro-abortionist reads a post then says "Hmm, I guess there COULD be reason to oppose it," I'll buy you lunch.

You can pay me via paypal (andrewgeoghegan@msn.com) as someone did change their minds before my first post on this thread. I think they went the wrong way and turn prolife on us though...

snip due to length

Unfortunately, many see the dangers associated with backyard abortions as a good thing. As warped and sickening as it is, they think women deserve it for some nebulous reason - again, connected to the idea that women shouldn't enjoy sex. They think that if abortions are dangerous and gory, women will give into pressure and carry the child to term.

And if thousands of women die because of their opinion, that's ok, because they deserved it for having sex.




Can you guess whether or not I like people? I think I'm going to go lurk in my pillowfort again and indulge in 'stress relief'.

As a matter of interest?
How many people that have posted on this thread are actually female?
Despite the fact that I am slightly pro-life (although I can see the pro-choicers' reasoning), I still feel that it should really be up to the women to decide.

I'm not at all sexist, but I think as its not the man who is pregnant, and therefore has to have the abortion and face the psychological trauma that I would imagine comes with it, should they really be allowed to make the decision?

(incidentally, I am male)

:(

*puts cake away*

What about cookies and/or biscuits? Or icecream? Or... well, actually, that's all I have in the house.

Le sigh.

I said GOOD DAY!

*leaves*

Acutally most of the posters are female (great way to meet chicks eh?) While I've spoken up for lesbian rights and refer to my girlfriend I've also mentioned getting her pregent so you may have guessed I'm a guy. I think the girls gave up on this thread after page 5 but if you read the first few pages you can see there are a lot of women posting.

To you it is useless. To others it is of great interest and the discussion of differing views gives us insight and understanding. If you don't like debate then visit the threads based on your favorite pie or something.I think the thing that really gets my goat is that, like a length of string, the abortion 'debate' has consisted of multiple parallel threads that are essentially repeating the same arguments over and over again, and by the time one thread runs out, a new one has been twisted into the whole...

The main points (in no particular order or structural format):
Abortion is murder/Abortion is not murder: Involves legal definition of murder, involves discussion of when 'life' starts, involves argument over what does and does not make collections of cells 'a human' as opposed to 'human', starts breaking down into whether or not there's a single transitional point between potentiality and actuality, or whether potentiality is in fact as good as actuality (also see below). 'Human' DNA
In the case of rape: Does the fact that the mother didn't choose have any bearing on the fact that the (potential) child didn't choose, usually ends up boiling down to capital punishment, perhaps for the teenage offspring of murderers, never really gets any better than that.
Risks to the mother, risks to the child, in both childbirth and abortion instances.
When a child is conscious: Getting rarer, this thread-fodder, but some involve a 'soul' immediately on conception in their arguments and others work on more scientific basics (with the occasional diversion due to biased site information). Generally gets resolved, these days (in favour of the "Pro-choice, but best to settle things before the end of the first trimester just to be sure" camp, but liable to flare up.
Parasitism: Donation of organ (resources of womb), rights of women to withhold this, rights of state to force women to continue with birth, oppression of womankind, dark dark things...
Terminology: Zygote, Embryo, Foetus, birth, etc. Emotive use of the word "child" and "baby", and counter-attacks by the opposing side.
Legislation on beliefs: What personal beliefs can be extended to all non-believers through implementation of laws.
Medical necessity: Only for this? This as an exception to the allow-with-limit situation? Particular application to how extremely late-term abortions of those already dead in womb.
Personal situation: "I wouldn't, and you shouldn't too", "I wouldn't, but I won't stop those who would", "I have, and I regret it, so you shouldn't make the same mistake", "I have (or would) and feel free to do the same". Modified by terms and conditions (cut-off points, exceptions, medical reasons).
Illegality driving abortions underground: Higher cost for women, higher cost
Reprehensible practices by abortionists: Mainly back-street, also self-abortion methods, causing health issues with mother as well as obvious effect on foetus). Gin, baths, stairs, coat hangers (universal "eewwww"s all round) and stuff like standing on your head that are the same league as the Coca-Cola douche that didn't help prevent the current need... And, and dangers are good.
Slavery: Attitudes to it then compared with abortion now, no cohesive stances, but it's nice to roll out. Later we see references to Nazis and Jews, potentially from both sides of the debate, depending on who grabbed the initiative. (Apparently NS forums are exempt from Godwin's Law, though...)
Legislating against abortion while sex-ed goes down-hill (or down completely the wrong road)
"You had sex, you took the risk, you must go through with it": Consent to pregnancy and its link (or otherwise) to consent to sex (peripherally relates to "in the event of rape" point, above). Abstinence is the only way? Heavy petting? Supposedly safe-sex that fails?
Quality of life: Are there enough babies to be adopted, are there enough adopters for the babies, are people too picky, what about the unhealthy/disabled babies? Potential to stray into euthanasia, eugenics, sterilisation of 'genetically impure', but that's quite rare in a sane discussion.
Father-to-be's right to 'divorce on paper' (indeed, any man), what is his say in abortion and what if he disagrees with mother-to-be (whether mother says no and father says yes or mother says yes and father says no) and his responsibilities. Fathers bearing children. Artificial wombs so pro-lifer's can take unwanted pre-birth offspring, or governments, or the army..?


I think I missed a lot of things, but that'll do for the time-being. I've also tried to be non-partisan in expounding all sides, but I've no doubt some bias leaks through. The above is not invitation for discussion with me (especially as I'm espousing both views I support and those that I don't) and hopefully not for the thread, but as a demonstration of the sort of thing that has already been discussed at length, most of it still remaining contentious without (significant) ground given or taken by either camp.

Yes if you had read the thread you'd know we have indeed discussed points.
Yes they are the main (if not only) points to this arguement.
Yes everyone knows them making this 'debate' a reiteration of views rather than adding anything new.

But the debate is a show of opion. Ok we know "some people think this" this thread lets those people express their beliefs. Ok so no-ones going to be won over, or comprimise thier views (unless their views had a very shaky foundation to start with) but why debate anything debated on this board ( eg Bush vs Kerry, Once again, a God question, Israel: Good Or Bad?, Omniscience and Free Will) when everyone knows the main arguements?

The point of this debate is the debate - not the outcome.

But here's a point that ratifies everything you just said:

Even if the prolifers are right and I could be convinced abortion is murder (eg God comes down from the heavens and proclaims it, new scienific discoveries prove it etc) then I would still support the womans right to choose.

I cannot be conviced that the prolife arguements are right and even if I was proven wrong I would still support choice. And I'm sure the prolifers feel the same way. We debate because we can, because we choose to, because it excerises our interlectual and social freedoms. We don't argue to win, we debate to express. If you can't understand that I can't help you.

While abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, there are three good reasons why it should not be banned.

1.) When the person is raped. It is cruel and unusual punishment to force a woman to carry a child conceived in those circumstances.
2.) When the pregnancy is conceived from incest.
3.) When not doing so will kill the mother and the child.

Fact of the matter is, abortions occurred before it was legalized and would still occur if it was made illegal again. At least now it's safer.

Just because you don't believe in it due to religious beliefs, that gives you no right to cram those ideals down someone else's throats.

For these reasons, I've organized a protest of the Pro-lifers protesting at an abortion clinic.

I cannot be conviced that the prolife arguements are right and even if I was proven wrong I would still support choice. And I'm sure the prolifers feel the same way. We debate because we can, because we choose to, because it excerises our interlectual and social freedoms. We don't argue to win, we debate to express. If you can't understand that I can't help you.Sorry about my diatribe (I assume you were responding to that). I'd logged on again today to find yet another thread on the subject and, masochist as I am, read through it all and found that the same old arguments were being betted from pillar to post exactly like every other time. I was almost incensed enough at one point to reply to a particular post, but I held off in favour of a small post summarised to "looks like we're at stalemate, mate", which then turned into that leviathon you saw above... :)

Personally, my involvements in the various debates haven't been "because", but in order to express heartfelt POVs about subjects and expose my reasoning to (hopefully) responsive audiences. If I want to expres myself, I involve myself in a jokey thread, adding my (what passes for) wit and intelligence on in the form of humorous exchanges, debates I take seriously. Probably too seriously, but at least (as I preach pro-choice) I allow people to have their own personal opinions.

Why should that stop at fetuses? Why not extend it to all life: as long as you can kill someone with no one finding out about it, it's ok? If you kill a living human who did nothing wrong, you're murdering it.

If an american soldier launches a missle that kills 17 civilians during a time of war under orders is that murder? Why not?

I agree with you on this part. However, the counterargument is still valid: "Let's suppose at the end of World War Two, the Allies found a bunch of dead Jews in concentration camps. Now suppose they said "Well, the loss of one human life should at least reap some benefit," so they cut off their skin and used it for lampshades. Similarly, if you were interred in a cemetary, would you want someone digging up your corpse, chopping it up, looking at it, prodding at it, in the name of science?

Lampshades? WTF? You're comparing the possiblity of ending two of the worst diseases in human history, as well as a multitude of other possible health benefits for the general populace with Lampshades? Is there a history of mental illness in your family?

And to your second question. I would be dead, my opinion is nil. They could cut holes in my corpse and rape me for eternity and my opinion or emotion in the matter would be non-existent. And for the record, I am an organ donor, will donate my body to science, and they can piss on it when they are done for all that it will matter to me.

A thalodomide baby doesn't have much in the way of humanness to it. Helen Keller didn't have as many human characteristics as a "normal" human. So are they not alive? Are their differences justifying removing their right to life?

Would you allow Helen Keller to get a drivers license? Why not? Could it be because we have a logical system for granting and protecting rights?

A 30 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 35 year old. An 18 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 21 year old. A 16 year old doesn't have the same rights as an 18 year old. A 12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 16 year old. And a fetus doesn't have the same rights as a baby, much less the same rights as a woman being forced to carry said fetus, donating her organs and nutrients against her will. There is no dichotomy in this.

What's not human about it? A fetus is the same as a comatose person in a hospital who needs a feeding tube. The only difference is that the fetus has more control of its muscles.

And that it is a machine being forced to care for the comatose persons body and not the organs and nutrients of another person.

If that comatose person required another individual to be strapped to them via an umbilicle cord, donating their time, nutrients, blood, sweat, and organs comatose people would never be on life support.

So when does a fetus become a human? One month? Eight months? 18 years? You're being arbitrary.

Yes, but so are you.

Saying no abortion, no how, no way, denies that there are times when it is necessary, or when one would be forcing the woman to do something no other citizen has ever been forced to do. Putting extremely strict limits on it does the same thing. Saying that everyone must have an abortion denies that some people are both willing and able to take care of the child.

The only system which allows for individuals to exist in the grey areas of reality is one in which individual women are allowed to decide for themselves, right or wrong, what is good for them and their lives. Any other system applies black and white absolutes to a grey issue.

Interesting contradiction in the news right now. Law allows women to have abortions claiming it is not a child, but a fetus. On the other hand, Scott Peterson is being tried for the murder of his wife and his unborn child. Does this mean that if the baby is loved and wanted it is human, but if it is an inconvenience caused my a few minutes of irresponsibility on the part of the mother it loses its human status and becomes a disposable fetus?

Clinically speaking, the DNA of the fetus is human from the moment of conception. This means the embryonic phase is merely one stage in the human life cycle. If you want to keep religion and politics out of it then science says that abortion is murder.

Your argument is that the foetus is human because it contains human DNA?

You do realise that human faeces also contain human DNA? So - we should be forced to carry that around for 9 months also?

And, there are so many reasons why it isn't murder... if we hadn't done this thread just a week ago, maybe I would feel like pointing them all out...

If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?

What gives you the right to not donate blood? What gives you the right to sit there with two kidneys when other 'living humans' need them? Why don't you have chunks out of your own liver, sections of lung missing, and scars all over your legs from marrow donations? All of those things will prevent someone from dieing.

Perhaps it could be that refusal to donate your organs is not the same, legally, as killing the receiver, even though the results are the same. And that we as a nation do not believe it is right to FORCE someone to risk their lives for another, convenient or not.

And in any case, arguing this point totally depends on whether you think a fetus is life. If it is life, then the mother has no right to kill it. If it is not life, then the mother has every right to do what she wants.

Whether or not it's life (and I don't believe it is before the 20th week or so), the mother has every right to deny it access to her organs. For the same reason that you have every right to refuse blood/tissue/organ donations. They are your body, noone can force you to risk them for another.

I am against abortion (surprise surprise, I am religious :) ). I'd say that it is wrong to kill something that is both ...

a)alive (i.e. displays the 7 life processes)
b)and has a full complement of human DNA, hence making it human

Thus, in my opinion, abortion is wrong. Contraception on the other hand, is OK in my book, as the full complement of human DNA is not present, so the gametes (sex cells) are not human.

Actually, you are wrong, I'm afraid. How does a newly conceived embryo exemplify the 7 life processes? Illustrate it's independant movement for me first, then show me the process of respiration... that'd be a good start. Then maybe you can show me how it feeds, since, from what I remember, a foetus is forced nutrition by the mother, rather than actually being able to feed.

Then we can discuss the ability to respond to stimulus, which is, of course, not rpesent until the neural network FORMS at 20 weeks...

Whether or not it's life (and I don't believe it is before the 20th week or so), the mother has every right to deny it access to her organs. For the same reason that you have every right to refuse blood/tissue/organ donations. They are your body, noone can force you to risk them for another.
That is a good point I've seen argued on these boards.

I still don't know if that will convince the pro-lifers though...they tend to fall back on the argument that it still amounts to murder.

Most of my arguments center on newly fertilized zygotes, since they don't have any human characteristics that the pro-lifers can throw at us.

How about she can't have an abortion because its murder?

How about you find a book of Legal definitions, and show us HOW abortion can be murder?

As for unwanted children being abused and neglected. Ever noticed how many people are on adoption waiting lists and will pay huge sums of money for a baby to adopt?

Yes, not nearly as many as there are unwanted children in the world for them to adopt. And unless the baby is white, healthy, newborn, with no chance of an STD or drug addiction, noone pays for anything other than the adoption legal fees. Right now, an estimated 100million children world-wide live in orphanages, foster homes, or as wards of the state. Until those kids are off that list you are ignorant to assume we should be adding to it.

Is it life? If you can kill it, I would say it is.

Do you realise the flaw in your argument?

One page earlier, you claimed that sperm were not alive, now you claim that a foetus must be alive so you can kill it.... the Problem? Sperm ARE alive, that's what a 'spermicide' is for... it KILLS sperm.

And it contains human DNA... so, by your definitions, a sperm is, not only alive, but also a potential human being. Which means that sex is murder, because of all the millions of sperms 'launched' only one will 'land' successfully.

Yes you can, by using the same methods you use for Blacks, and all other organisms on earth, genome mapping.

Care to list the criteria for a living organism. I guarantee you that if you do you will find that adult humans of all races meet them, while fetus do not meet all of them (depending on their devellopment stage).

So please, use the same methods.

Your feces do not, they are part of what you ate. They share their genetic material with that.

Perhaps you never took health classes. Feces get their brown color from dead blood cells filtered out by the liver and moved to the colon. They also have large chunks of other dead tissue from your own body (mostly your stomach and intestinal lining) mixed in with your food. They do, in fact, have in tact and entire copies of your genetic material and share it with you.

Stop being so ridiculous. Of course not 18 years, you know this, you're just trying to be an ass. Once it leaves the womb, and is alive independent of its mother, it is a human being. But while it is still in the womb, it is debatable. There is no completely, 100% agreed upon point where a fetus is definitively a human being. So it becomes a matter of personal belief. And I don't think that you or I have any right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do based on our beliefs.

Okay - some civilisations HAVE used cut-off points as late as 18 years - Perhaps Arammanar truly believes that those primitives had the right idea?

Which makes it precisely the point at hand. It is illegal to take a human's life.

It is not illegal to take a human's life in many situations. Besides the already mentioned capital punishment notion, it is not illegal for a soldier to take the life of an enemy during open aggression. It is not illegal for a police officer to kill a suspect during a gunfight while protecting his own life or the life of civilians. In some states, it is not illegal for you or I to shoot someone for breaking and entering into our own homes.

And more to the point at hand, it is not illegal for you to refuse to donate blood or organs that might save the life of another. Nor is it illegal for you to refuse to jump in front of a bullet, speeding train, or other deadly occurance if that refusal will cause the death of another.

A woman who has an abortion is not killing the fetus, neither is the doctor. A woman who has an abortion is refusing to further donate her organs, nutrients, and time to another. A doctor who performs it is simply severing the connection. That this may (and if early in pregnancy I say, and science agrees, does not) result in the death of something potentially human is inconsequential to the argument.

Perhaps you never took health classes. Feces get their brown color from dead blood cells filtered out by the liver and moved to the colon. They also have large chunks of other dead tissue from your own body (mostly your stomach and intestinal lining) mixed in with your food. They do, in fact, have in tact and entire copies of your genetic material and share it with you.

And, since the stomach lining provides some of the best material for cloning, and the alimentary canal contibutes cells to 'ex-food', human excrement carries perfect cells for (at least one form of) replication, and fully complete DNA.

So. Excrement is equivalent to a foetus...

The term "pro-choice" is misleading. In all but a very very few instances, a woman is pregnant because of a choice she made. Unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible. Not to mention that the same unprotected sex that creates a baby is also what spreads STD. I-R-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E !
It isn't possible to give the right to choose to all parties involved as the baby has no vote in the matter as to whether it lives or dies. If you don't have the right to tell a mother she can't have an abortion, what gives you the right to tell a child its mother has the right to kill it as a matter of convenience?

A woman is pregnant because of a choice she made.

How do you completely ignore the contribution of a man, here?

Sure, it is the woman that gets pregnant... but she is (obviously) far from the only person to have been involved... and you have no way of knowing how much of 'a choice' she had.

I advocate spending some time talking to young mothers somewhere like Alabama or Georgia, and find out what some of these girls consider their 'choices' were... in an area where the organised religion CONDITIONS females to be subservient to males, and where education regarding sex is considered taboo. In some of those rural schools, decent sex education isn't even available.

So you have young females, in the company of young males, with nothing much to do... add to this the fact that the girls have been TRAINED to say 'yes' to the boys, and that they have little or no idea what 'sex' truly is or entails.

So - it is society that is choosing teenage pregnancy, but it is each individual girl that has to deal with the repercussions.

If you care about cardiac patients, why don't you donate your heart?

Why don't you? The pro-choice side is arguing that this forced organ donation is wrong. You're the one arguing that the mother should have to donate her organs under force to another.

Yes, it is, in one stage of human development. If a child is disposable based on its ability to be independent, then can a parent "abort" their screaming 2 year old, or their destructive 9 year old, or their smart mouthed 13 year old?

Abortion is just another way that our society harbors the lack of responsibility. Pregnant-abort. Burn yourself with a cup of coffee-sue McD. Fat-sue fast food restaurants. Broke your arm in a wreck-sue the other driver for permanently crippling you. Get an F on a test you didn't study for-change the grading system so non-achievers are not mentally scarred. Refuse to work and support your family-draw public entitlements and teach your kids and their kids to do the same.

As for unwanted children being abused and neglected. Ever noticed how many people are on adoption waiting lists and will pay huge sums of money for a baby to adopt?

The DNA is human. The creature is human. If you think that just because a fetus doesn't resemble a fully formed human, then you have never taken a good look at a lot of people over the age of 80.

Your argument about adoption is flawed... since it obviously isn't just adopters that are on waiting lists... otherwise, there would be no orphanages, etc. There are prodigious waiting lists for children to BE adopted, sicne people have the luxury of CHOOSING which baby they have when they adopt.

There are already millions of children in this world with no family. Living in a faceless building somewhere, hoping someone will one day choose them to be their child. Many of these children stay resident in orphanages all their juvenile life, until they are old enough to support themselves, or are temporary residents in care facilities and foster homes, constantly moved around and never given a 'family'.

Adoption isn't the solution. It may be part of the solution, but it certainly isn't all of it.

Also, it has already been visited, but the mere presence of human DNA is not the same as being human.

Yes you can, by using the same methods you use for Blacks, and all other organisms on earth, genome mapping.

Fallacy.

Genome mapping will tell you what genetic code an organism, or part of an organism, carries. It will not tell you WHAT that organism IS.

A human skin cell will provide the 'human' response to genome mapping. A human cancer cell will provide the 'human' response to genome mapping. Human excrement will provide the 'human' response to genome mapping.

Are skin, cancer and excrement humans? Do those 'organisms' deserve full human rights?

An interesting tangent just occured to me... by the definition given... i.e. that 'human' life is determined by human genome being present, does this mean that a person with an articial hip is no longer human? The human genome would no longer be present... what about the proposition of a pig heart/human transplant? By the 'human genome' argument, that person MUST lose some rights, because they would become less proportionally human, and slightly more 'pig', according to mapping genomes.

Also - a person with a cold? They will have at least two different genomes present and active. So - we can kill people with diseases, since they don't 'match' the human genome?

As for my faith, I am not a loser. I believe that it is not my right to determine who and when anyone should die. That is the job of the One who created me. You know what a loser is? Someone who calls names when they don't have a reasoned argument.

By your argument, anyone that DOESN'T believe in a creator god should be free to abort, then? Since they do not acknowledge the existence of your 'god', and therefore cannot be usurping his 'job'?

This is the flaw with a religious argument. You cannot prove that your god exists, so you cannot prove what he would or would not allow.

Also - according to the bible, even if you DO believe in the christian view of god, there is text that points out that it is okay to abort, provided that the 'mother' isn't harmed... and that the 'father' approves. (We can assume that all runaway 'fathers' are giving tacit approval, I guess).

Sporkian gave the text of an essay that he/she :confused: obviously did a lot of research for. Let me quote some of the statistics from that essay:

Another argument to keep abortion legal is that abortion saves many women’s lives. On the contrary, according to a study by the Family Research Council, the use of abortion for health reasons amounts to only 3% of the total number of abortions per year, and rape and incest account for just 1%. The fact is American law today allows abortion for any reason and for no reason. Only a small percentage falls into hard-case categories that pro-abortion groups have used as a gambit to justify abortion-on-demand

How can we as "civilized" people accept the barbarism of abortion?

And every day, people die of starvation in the western world. Don't talk to me about the 'barbarism' that civilisation will allow.

You SHOW a 'civilisation' first.

Oh no no, I love debate. I will debate someone on Kerry/Bush till the cows come home. THAT's a debatable topic. There's give and take involved.

To start a thread on an uncompromising issue such as abortion is to start a thread in which debate is impossible.

If you find one post in this thread where an anti-abortionist says "Wow, I guess abortion IS ok under this circumstance," or where a pro-abortionist reads a post then says "Hmm, I guess there COULD be reason to oppose it," I'll buy you lunch.

How would you like to pay? The person in question is "Suicidal Librarians", and a search on her posts will probably eventually throw up the specific response in a thread much like this. She is one of the few people that approaches debate in a proper 'debating' mindset, and so, is open to suggestions if her own argument is flawed.

I'd like Taco Bell, but I'm willing to accept an Arby's Market Fresh sandwich.