NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not here to defend one side or the other, but to seeks some information that may help enlighten me.

What is your stance on abortion?

Murder.

Err, there are a bunch of other threads going about it...

My stance is that it should be permitted before the foetus counts as alive. After that, I don't know.

Before it is counted as alive? What do you mean by that?

There is no way that the child is suddenly born somewhere on the way to fully developing. This is a black and white issue. No gray zone. Either the child is alive or not, and seeing as it continues to live, unless acted upon by outside forces, it is most definately alive.

Before it is counted as alive? What do you mean by that?

There is no way that the child is suddenly born somewhere on the way to fully developing. This is a black and white issue. No gray zone. Either the child is alive or not, and seeing as it continues to live, unless acted upon by outside forces, it is most definately alive.
Well, right after conception, when it's just an egg and a sperm, I don't see it as a living human.

I am not here to defend one side or the other, but to seeks some information that may help enlighten me.

What is your stance on abortion?
Hey, in the poll, you left out the "pro-abortion" option. Everybody should have one!
:D

Well, right after conception, when it's just an egg and a sperm, I don't see it as a living human.

When do we start to view it as alive? After the heart begins to beat,or when the fingernails form, I know how about when it requires nourishment from the host(mother) as a non living thing has no need to be nourished.

When do we start to view it as alive? After the heart begins to beat,or when the fingernails form, I know how about when it requires nourishment from the host(mother) as a non living thing has no need to be nourished.
I dunno when it can be qualified as a living human.

Well, right after conception, when it's just an egg and a sperm, I don't see it as a living human.

It's not just egg and sperm. It's a union between the two. After that, the resulting cell has a completely different DNA than the mother, and at that point, it is no longer hers. It has the full potential of becoming a human, just like a child has the full potential of becoming an adult.

Nature is not bound by laws. There is no magical divider that separates life from death in this situation. It is plain and simple: life begets life. A living sperm and egg beget a living embryo.

Before it is counted as alive? What do you mean by that?

There is no way that the child is suddenly born somewhere on the way to fully developing. This is a black and white issue. No gray zone. Either the child is alive or not, and seeing as it continues to live, unless acted upon by outside forces, it is most definately alive.
It is not true that an unaborted fetus (by any name) will continue to live if not acted on by outside forces, therefore the argument 'seeing as it continues to live, unless acted upon by outside forces, it is most definately alive' is unsound.

It's not just egg and sperm. It's a union between the two. After that, the resulting cell has a completely different DNA than the mother, and at that point, it is no longer hers. It has the full potential of becoming a human, just like a child has the full potential of becoming an adult.

Nature is not bound by laws. There is no magical divider that separates life from death in this situation. It is plain and simple: life begets life. A living sperm and egg beget a living embryo.
It has the full potential of becoming a human.
But it's not a human, is it?

BO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-RING. Boring. BORING.

It has the full potential of becoming a human.
But it's not a human, is it?

Who are you to decide?

I am not here to defend one side or the other, but to seeks some information that may help enlighten me.

What is your stance on abortion?
My stance on abortion is that it is evil, and is an atrocity against Mother Nature.

I really don't know much about abortion, but I do know that the fetus is forced out of the womb, and the head is chopped off or something.

Yayyyy, isn't that great, everyone? An evil atrocity. Now if you'll notice, there's plenty of other threads here in General. Maybe you'd like to look through a few...

It's not just egg and sperm. It's a union between the two. After that, the resulting cell has a completely different DNA than the mother,
ER no.

and at that point, it is no longer hers.
Whether or not it is 'hers' is not relevent so far as I can see.

It has the full potential of becoming a human,
Aha and so does a sperm, and the matter that the sperm was before it was a sperm, and the matter that was....

just like a child has the full potential of becoming an adult.
Just like a lottery ticket has a potential to win, none of which appears to me to relevent.

Nature is not bound by laws.
Again this isnt relevent.

There is no magical divider that separates life from death in this situation.
There is no universally agreed apon divider at all

It is plain and simple: life begets life.
and death

A living sperm and egg beget a living embryo.
sometimes, but not in isolation of other factors.


My stance on abortion is that it is evil, and is an atrocity against Mother Nature.
I suggest you dont have one (abortion that is, you are of course welcome to have a stance...)

I really don't know much about abortion,
evidence to follow...
but I do know that the fetus is forced out of the womb, and the head is chopped off or something.
as promised...

I am not here to defend one side or the other, but to seeks some information that may help enlighten me.

What is your stance on abortion?

In my opinion, until the baby is born and the umbilical cord is cut, it is a part of the mother's body. And the mother is free to do what she wants with her own body. If she chooses to remove a part of it, then so be it. It is up to her.

I suggest you dont have one (abortion that is, you are of course welcome to have a stance...)
I can't have one 'cause I'm a male. :p
But if I ever meet a girl who has/had an abortion, she will (hopefully) never hear from me again. ;)

Who are you to decide?
?
Since when is the potential to be something equivalent to being that thing?

Who am I? Someone that understands logic. Go find another, and they'll tell you the same thing. It's not something you decide!

In my opinion, until the baby is born and the umbilical cord is cut, it is a part of the mother's body. And the mother is free to do what she wants with her own body. If she chooses to remove a part of it, then so be it. It is up to her.
Finally someone who supports birthing babies, crushing them with a mallet, then severing the umbilical cord and tossing them in the dumpster. Out of curiousity, if I were to glue myself to you, would I then have the right to kill you?

Author's Note: The author of this post is not rapidly pro-life, as it may seem; he merely finds the sentiment of the quoted material to be ludicrous and something likely abhorred by the majority of Westerners, abortion stance aside.

I am not here to defend one side or the other, but to seeks some information that may help enlighten me.

What is your stance on abortion?


I personally, would never have an abortion. I feel that it is a very sick thing to do, to kill something that is growing inside of you. But, I also think that it is wrong to tell someone who wants an abortion that they can't have one. The person may have some sort of special circumstance (i.e. maybe they got raped) or maybe they are too young to raise a child. Yes, I think abortion is wrong, but if someone doesn't want to go through with their pregnancy, you shouldn't force them. I think that it would be wrong to make and enforce laws against abortion because something like that is a personal decision.

Therefore, I am obviously pro-choice.

?
Since when is the potential to be something equivalent to being that thing?

Who am I? Someone that understands logic. Go find another, and they'll tell you the same thing. It's not something you decide!

By this logic, it seems that infanticide would be legal, since they child has not developed to the point in which in can perform all the a human can. Actually if you go by the scientific classification of life, you're not technically alive until pubery, b/c one of the 5 requirements for life is the ability to reproduce.

By this logic, it seems that infanticide would be legal, since they child has not developed to the point in which in can perform all the a human can.
What's performace have to do with classification as a live human?
Nothing!
Actually if you go by the scientific classification of life, you're not technically alive until pubery, b/c one of the 5 requirements for life is the ability to reproduce.
From what I'd heard, that was really just included on a technicality, but I have no idea.
Err, anybody else know more about this?

ER no.

Err, yes. If it contains the DNA of the father, and has been altered through meiosis, then it is different, no?

Whether or not it is 'hers' is not relevent so far as I can see.

Have you ever heard the words "it's my choice!" (?)

Aha and so does a sperm, and the matter that the sperm was before it was a sperm, and the matter that was....

Sperm cannot become human without and egg...common sense.

Just like a lottery ticket has a potential to win, none of which appears to me to relevent.

Meaning that it is alive...which is somewhat relevent...

There is no universally agreed apon divider at all

Exactly, but people are trying to create one

[nature is not bound by laws...] Again this isnt relevent.

No? We cannot tell nature when a child is alive and when it is not, just like we cannot decide by ourselves whether or not partial birth abortion is right due to the fact that the child is not 'born,' thus not alive.

and death

Of course, everything dies. Doesn't mean we have to assist it...doesn't mean we have the right to assist it...doesn't mean we have the right to kill of people because they will die eventually.

This is off-topic, but I feel this needs to be posted somewhere. Have y'all noticed how antagonistic many people on this forum can be? I think we should try to follow the famous Voltaire quote " I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to the death to say it."

I wonder when a fetus becomes conscious?
I bet it's really boring floating in a dark womb...
I'm glad people aren't burdened with remembering it. That would be a supreme waste of space.

On a side note, but I feel this needs to be posted somewhere. Have y'all noticed how antagonistic many people on this forum can be? I think we should try to follow the famous Voltaire quote " I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to the death to say it."
Yeah.
I've always liked that quote.

What's performace have to do with classification as a live human?
Nothing!


Exactly my point, so why is a fetus not considered human?

By this logic, it seems that infanticide would be legal, since they child has not developed to the point in which in can perform all the a human can. Actually if you go by the scientific classification of life, you're not technically alive until pubery, b/c one of the 5 requirements for life is the ability to reproduce.

Right so nothing is alive until it reaches puberty. This goes against all logic, seeing as children and juvenile animals seem perfectly alive to me...

And if you think that infanticide should be legal, then by all means do it and see what happens. Hell, why don't you go hijack a bus full of kids and jump out just as it's going off a cliff. Then you can explain that the only thing you did wrong was destroy a bus.

I wonder why people that claim to be Christians call it murder, don't they read the Old Testament, cause it says that its not murder, but restitution should be made for the killing of an unborn.

And last time I checked Jesus never talked about it.

Sperm cannot become human without and egg...common sense.And sperm and egg cannot become human without nutrients. Now do you see the dilemma?

Yeah.
I've always liked that quote.

Its a good one and I believe the world would be a better place if more tried to follow it.

Exactly my point, so why is a fetus not considered human?
I never mentioned performance capacity. I said that potential to be something is not being that thing.

I have potential to be dead, but it's fairly obvious I'm not. I have potential to grow to be 7 feet tall, but I'm quite certain I'm only 71 inches.

By this logic, it seems that infanticide would be legal,
No it doesnt.
since they child has not developed to the point in which in can perform all the a human can.
Has any human?
Actually if you go by the scientific classification of life, you're not technically alive until pubery, b/c one of the 5 requirements for life is the ability to reproduce.
Misconstrued, and were it not (either crediting it with being true) irrelevent.

Exactly my point, so why is a fetus not considered human?

By pro-choicers, you mean.

I wonder why people that claim to be Christians call it murder, don't they read the Old Testament, cause it says that its not murder, but restitution should be made for the killing of an unborn.

And last time I checked Jesus never talked about it.

Well you know, sometimes you gotta call things like ya see 'em. I think Jesus wants us to think for ourselves. However, we need to be careful that we do not put words in his mouth.

And sperm and egg cannot become human without nutrients. Now do you see the dilemma?

No I do not because it is non-existent. A sperm cell can never, and will never become an egg, whereas the union of sperm and egg will naturally become a human, as nature has proven.

Well you know, sometimes you gotta call things like ya see 'em. I think Jesus wants us to think for ourselves. However, we need to be careful that we do not put words in his mouth.
I can understand saying that its a dangerous course of action, for the lacking of sacradness of a life, but one really shouldn't hide behind religion if it was never there in the first place.

People should take the issue on themselves, and not hide. I'm not ashamed of my views, I will say those backed biblically, but I will also say how I think and feel, based on other things.

I just think its odd that a lot of christians just assume its murder in the bible, mostly because they are Bob-ites, eg: they follow Rev. Bob and his doctrine on what Jesus and G-d wants from us, we start following his view points rather then the source.

I wonder why people that claim to be Christians call it murder, don't they read the Old Testament, cause it says that its not murder, but restitution should be made for the killing of an unborn.

And last time I checked Jesus never talked about it.

That's why we don't follow every doctrine in the Bible...

That's why we don't follow every doctrine in the Bible...
explain, I'm not sure you're meaning.. are you saying that you pick and choose what doctrins you follow as a christian, or are you saying you aren't a christian but see some good points, or something that I missed.

What is potential really other than a benchmark of performance/ ability/ other characteristics? Plus, if your not sure if its human, wouldn't it be best to err on the side of caution?

No I do not because it is non-existent. A sperm cell can never, and will never become an egg, whereas the union of sperm and egg will naturally become a human, as nature has proven.
A human will naturaly become dead, as Nature has proven.
But neither of these have any bearing on anything.

explain, I'm not sure you're meaning.. are you saying that you pick and choose what doctrins you follow as a christian, or are you saying you aren't a christian but see some good points, or something that I missed.

I mean that I won't murder somebody for not attending Church on Sunday (or Sabbath), nor will I murder somebody for infringing on the ten commandments (like stealing or adultery).

The doctrines to follow have been chosen and sifted throughout the centuries.

What is potential really other than a benchmark of performance/ ability/ other characteristics?
Potential is:
Main Entry: 2potential
Function: noun
1 a : something that can develop or become actual <a potential for violence> b : PROMISE 2
2 a : any of various functions from which the intensity or the velocity at any point in a field may be readily calculated b : the work required to move a unit positive charge from a reference point (as at infinity) to a point in question c : POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE

explain, I'm not sure you're meaning.. are you saying that you pick and choose what doctrins you follow as a christian, or are you saying you aren't a christian but see some good points, or something that I missed.

I thinks hes referring to the fact that Christians aren't required to follow the tenets of the first covenant. However, I think that they are still, in general, a good guide to follow. However, Jesus did say all sins are equal. So, if abortion is indeed a sin, then its not any better or worse than murder.

A human will naturaly become dead, as Nature has proven.
But neither of these have any bearing on anything.

Point, please.

Since I have a penis, I don't think I'm qualified to answer this question. I haven't formed a concrete opinion, but then again I don't need to. I'll never have any idea of what being pregnant would be like. I was lucky enough to be born with equiptment that doesn't need an encyclopoedic manual just to maintain.
The instructions could be provided on a card-sized pamphlet.

I think it's highly arrogant of men to voice their weak opinions on the issue (usually scream, convinced that they're right). We aren't really equipped to make the decision. I leave it up to women to decide.

Let's face it guys, if women in politics were telling us what to do medically with our cocks, we'd tell them to grow their own or STFU.

No I do not because it is non-existent. A sperm cell can never, and will never become an egg, whereas the union of sperm and egg will naturally become a human, as nature has proven.
What does "A sperm cell can never and will never become an egg" have to do with anything? No one said it would. They just said it would become a human. Now, explain why it is acceptable for one to say "sperm and egg naturally become human" while neglecting nutrients, but not to say "sperm becomes human" while neglecting the egg? You might be surprised to find that it's exactly the same error.

But I'm telling you fetus, have just as many of ohms of resistance as humans so potential their should be the same. :p

Point, please.
That using "potential for life" as an argument doesn't work, as potential has nothing to do with this.

But I'm telling you fetus, have just as many of ohms of resistance as humans so potential their should be the same. :p
Hee!
I didn't get that at first, and thought you were being serious!
:D

Seriously, though, in a potential for violence, violence would be the actual benchmark, what you measure the potential by. So it seems that by saying fetuses have not reached full ptentialk would be measuring the fetus against a standard of performance. However, I don't think human life is some thing that should be measured.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is
present from the moment of conception."


I agree

Err, yes. If it contains the DNA of the father, and has been altered through meiosis, then it is different, no?
Normatively a child's DNA is composed of at least 50% identical genes to their mothers, things at least 50% the same are not normatively described as 'completely different'.

Have you ever heard the words "it's my choice!" (?)
I've heard all those words, even together and in that order. Please dont tell me you imagine that this normatively means anything about property rights in this context.

Sperm cannot become human without and egg...common sense.
Sperm cannot become sperm without the necessary and sufficient conditions for it doing so being met....ah actually this is a surprisingly common happenstance, so much so that, all our technology and science is all entirely based on it.

Meaning that it is alive...which is somewhat relevent...
Er no the fact that something can, certain conditions being met, become X actually proves that it is not currently X, purely as a function of the definition of become...

Exactly, but people are trying to create one
So you changed you mind on this particular aspect of the issue?

No? We cannot tell nature when a child is alive and when it is not,
I can only guess what you think this means.

just like we cannot decide by ourselves whether or not partial birth abortion is right due to the fact that the child is not 'born,' thus not alive.
Actually we have to, and if we cant, then that's something we'd better work on.

Of course, everything dies. Doesn't mean we have to assist it
Doesnt mean we have to prevent it either.

...doesn't mean we have the right to assist it...
equally it doesnt mean we dont have the right.

doesn't mean we have the right to kill of people because they will die eventually.
equally it doesnt mean we dont have the right.

Peopleandstuff automatically wins the current line of debate because (s)he understands logic and the deeper implications of grammatical structure. This person's opponent, however, possesses fledgling ideas of these concepts and misuses them. You simply can't beat someone like Peopleandstuff in a semantic argument. Not least because everything (s)he says is grounded in fact.

I think that the argument most people are trying to make here is when can a thing be considered alive. Some believe that life begins at conception. If they are right, then yes, abortion is murder regardless of how the procedure is preformed. Some believe that the fetus may be considered alive at some point further down the road of gestation. If they are right, then before a given period it may be considered ethical to have an abortion. It might even be thought of as a procedure akin to the removal of a tumor (for what is a tumor but an abnormal mass of growing tissue?).

So, to the heart of the matter. When may a thing be considered alive? This, regardless of what some may think, is a very gray issue. There are many levels of organization in the biological sense. An organism, which we may define as being a living thing which exhibits all the signs of life, may be as simple as a single cell. In that respect, a sperm and an egg or a zygote (a united sperm and egg) could be considered as a living thing. However, there are several arguments against this position. An example is thus: The sperm and egg cannot survive outside of the human body for more than an hour or two (although this is not a solid argument, as there are many single celled organisms which require special environs to survive, and because we already know that sperm and egg are both smaller pieces of a larger operating system). We also know that there are a few levels of biological organization between the Cellular level and the Organism level. For example, there are the tissues, then the organs, then the organ systems, and finally the organism. So the existance of a single cell (such as a zygote) does not always constitute life. As I'm sure most of you are aware, there are varying stages of development for an "embryo" (I shudder at the use of such a loose and undefined term, but so be it). After a few days, the zygote begins to divide rapidly and is soon a mass of cells. This may be called tissue (a group of similar cells working to perform a specific task). After several months, the tissues have begun to form into different types of cells with their own unique function and structures, and soon we have organs and so on and so forth. This process continues until birth. So, as we can surmise, the process from conception to birth is a gradient of ever-increasing complexity along a biological organizational hierarchy that begins with a few dazzeling chemical reactions and ends with a single biological marvel. At no point can we deduce when the "fetus" is alive. We must, therefore, look to a hybrid of thought: Science and Philosophy. What is life? What is sensience? Does sensience require a nervous system? Is the soul a function of biology? Is Mind a function of the soul?

Ultimately, until we can answer these questions, it is a matter of semantics, passions, and choices.

Come on, don't attack because of grammar. Leave that to the english teachers of the world. Often times, I will knowingly make grammatical errors just cuz i dont wish to take the time to add every little comma :D

The five laws I mentioned earlier a general rules accepted by much of the biology community, but the do not address children. These rules are actually why there is a huge debate over whether viruses are actually living or not, be cause they are missing one of these. Forgive me, but I don't remember all 5. Two of them are the capacity for reproduction, and respiration(as refering to a chemical reaction that provides cells with energy, not necessarily breathing.)

I like this PeopleandStuff. Smart feller.

Viruses are complex chemicals, I believe.

Anyway...
Here's how it works.
A sperm cell and an egg cell meet, and become a human. By their selves, either one has half a much DNA as a skin cell.

And please do not be so obstinate as to say you "don't understand" how men can force their will on a woman's fetus. We are attempting to force our will because we think your acions are morally wrong. I'm sure you have tried to force your will on others whose actions you percieved as being morally wrong.

We are attempting to force our will because we think your acions are morally wrong. I'm sure you have tried to force your will on others whose actions you percieved as being morally wrong.
I percieve killing animals for sport as morally wrong, or at least morally reprehensible, but I don't try to force my will on anybody about it. I don't think anybody really has a right to force their morals on others.

Viruses are definitely not alive, however I like the comparison of a virus to a zygote-prenatal infant. Clever.

I'm not clear on whether or not the resperative action of a zygote is an independant function of the cell itself, or if it is performed by the mother. One would assume that the presence of the umbilical is indicitive of it as being a function of the mother.

Regarding 'life' assuming that the issue centres on definitions of life is a complete distraction until it has been established that this is even relevent. If there is a single sound argument, regarding abortion who's conclusion is uneffected regardless what the definition of life, alive, or 'beginning of life' is proved to be, or accepted to be, the definition of life would be immaterial.

Bosco Bankt, are you trying to make me blush...or are you aware of the tendancy for logic to give way before flattery...? :D

Come on, don't attack because of grammar. Leave that to the english teachers of the world. Often times, I will knowingly make grammatical errors just cuz i dont wish to take the time to add every little comma
It's not about grammer, but about logical construction. Are you maths minded more so than English?

I think it's entirely relevant to define life for a question such as this. How can one murder what is not alive?

Also, to that Deel character: All things are complex chemicals, especially if they retain DNA/RNA. What do you think protiens are, just a bunch of dissociated monomers that happen to clump in the appropriate order? Don't be a twit.

Here's how it works.
A sperm cell and an egg cell meet, and become a human. By their selves, either one has half a much DNA as a skin cell.
...actually no, because you are leaving out the bit where you point out that together anyone cell has only as much DNA as that same skin cell and that the reasoning for halfing the cell is functional not for our categorical purposes with regards to life.

And please do not be so obstinate as to say you "don't understand" how men can force their will on a woman's fetus. We are attempting to force our will because we think your acions are morally wrong. I'm sure you have tried to force your will on others whose actions you percieved as being morally wrong.
'I am forcing my will because I think your actions are morally wrong' is in this context materially different to 'I am forcing my will on you, and I think your actions are morally wrong'.

I think it's entirely relevant to define life for a question such as this. How can one murder what is not alive?
Which is why I point out how distracting it is. Whether or not abortion is murder is not relevent.

Come on, don't attack because of grammar. Leave that to the english teachers of the world. Often times, I will knowingly make grammatical errors just cuz i dont wish to take the time to add every little comma :DAs stated by Peopleandstuff, it's not about the grammar. What I was saying that (s)he was simply using logic, denotation, and causal relationships to dismember arguments. There was no speculation, just cold hard logical reasoning.Bosco Bankt, are you trying to make me blush...or are you aware of the tendancy for logic to give way before flattery...? :D I was merely impressed by the way that you effortlessly destroyed the arguments put against you without straying into the realm of opinion or belief. The adroitness you displayed at using what people actually said to defeat them made me quite glad I wasn't arguing with you, because to do so would only be frustrating and self-defeating.I think it's entirely relevant to define life for a question such as this. How can one murder what is not alive?I believe the point was that this isn't necessarily about murder, but I can't be sure.

EDIT: Well, I guess I can be sure, after reading the post sneaked in before mine.

I believe abortion is not a sin. But I do believe it is after the 3 month period. I believe that the only time a mother can abort their child is when they've either been raped or their life is in danger.

Murder.
nicely put... the only time i havent quite figured out yet is if the mothers life is in danger...

I believe abortion is not a sin. But I do believe it is after the 3 month period. I believe that the only time a mother can abort their child is when they've either been raped or their life is in danger.
I've always found that argument fascinating. So . . . it becomes not murder if you've been raped? As far as I'm aware, the law doesn't allow for justification of crime.

Viruses are definitely not alive, however I like the comparison of a virus to a zygote-prenatal infant. Clever.


Actually virus are right on the envolope of living and not living and there is debated as to which side they fall on. Different people (accredited, educated people) will give different opinions on a virus and life. Same with a embryo. What place does a virus have in this conversation.

b

u

m

p