NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

Sorry, pal, but "individual rights" IS a valid argument, backed up by the laws of this nation. I am no fan of abortion, but I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for anyone else but me. The person choosing abortion has to live with the consequences, and using it as birth control is a really shitty idea to me. TO ME. In no way do I have the right to demand that everyone else think likewise. And since conservatives are forever railing against govermental involvement in individual lives, it seems that pro-choice (as opposed to pro-abortion) would be a natural, "states' rights" conservative position. 'Course, that's just my brain, goin' off an' thinkin' again.

If you don't make legalised women who are desperate will goto back alley clinics instead and could do serious harm to themselves.
Also why is a fetus more of a human life than my sperm cells? Am I commiting genocide everytime I splooge?

Sorry, pal, but "individual rights" IS a valid argument, backed up by the laws of this nation.
and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

If you don't make legalised women who are desperate will goto back alley clinics instead and could do serious harm to themselves.

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.
Alright, first I want you to understand that though I'm pro-choice, I would never see myself in a situation (even those I support the choice for) that would convince me to get an abortion. Now, I understand in the cases of rape, health concerns, incest, or in EXTREME cases, age and/or financial limitations (consider that just because they can't afford a child doesn't mean that they CAN afford hospital costs and attorney costs for adoption cases). However, I don't think that abortions should be a matter of "Oooh, this baby is oh-so-inconvenient for me, I don't think I'll keep it". I believe that it should remain legal, but very closely monitored, and to be honest, I don't think the personal opinions really need to go into it. Like I said, I can't imagine me ever having an abortion, no matter the circumstances, because that's just what I believe -- but it's not my place to attempt to force those beliefs on another person, especially one who may really need an abortion, situationally speaking.

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

Amen. I dont understand why other people dont think that way. The only strong pro choice argument on this thread so far is "well a woman could hurt her self during a backally abortion, which she will do if its outlawed.". Well good. She should hurt herself for trying to kill her unborn child.

Edit: I sent this right before I saw [NS]Simonist 's post.

First of all, I want to state that I don't like the idea of abortion, but I support a woman's right to do with her body as she sees fit. But I'd much rather see a child go to adoption. I am pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion

That having been said I have several reasons for why I am pro-choice. First of all, in the early stages of conception, I do not believe that a small, nearly microscopic mass of cells can be considered sentient life. (In compromise, I do not think abortion is appropriate at the fetal stage unless there is danger to the mother).

My biggest reason however is because if we do ban abortion, people WILL still be having them, except in the Black Market, which would be alot more dangerous than a clinical abortion. More will die this way.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?
Oooh, automatically I know this is a day we won't be readily agreeing....

If you don't make legalised women who are desperate will goto back alley clinics instead and could do serious harm to themselves. and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal
Also why is a fetus more of a human life than my sperm cells? Am I commiting genocide everytime I splooge?
your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

Simonist']Oooh, automatically I know this is a day we won't be readily agreeing....
yeah, I was waiting for you ;) we can still be friends right?:p

what about the many wemon who are raped each year or the babie is harmfull to the womans survival the problem I have with pro lifers is that they ignore cercumstances and situations and say it is always wrong. The rape victium never had a choice in having the baby.

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

Alright, but does the punishment fit the crime? Having to raise an unwanted child for years because... one night of heavy intoxication? A condomn breaking? A rape?

Are you a man or a woman? Generally gender doesn't matter in a debate, but in this case it does. As a man you would not have to suffer such risk as a result of unprotected sex.

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.
This is an issue with which I have struggled for a couple of years, now. The closest I've been able to get is that a zygote fully contains a separate human life, ie, that zygote is genetically different from any other human being and everything the zygote needs to become a fully developed human being is contained within itself. I'd appreciate any thoughts from anyone.

yeah, I was waiting for you ;) we can still be friends right?:p
I still appreciate you.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.
In any society that has any claim to being a 'free society' everything is legal except those things which are made illegal for particular reasons that justify the use of coercive legislation.

That means that abortion should not be illegal unless making is illegal can be justified.

Piekrom']what about the many wemon who are raped each year or the babie is harmfull to the womans survival the problem I have with pro lifers is that they ignore cercumstances and situations and say it is always wrong. The rape victium never had a choice in having the baby.
murder is always wrong, that is absolute morality, you have to weigh the benifits with the cost (truth be known I am not really pro-Life or pro-choice because I believe that in circumstances where the mother and baby will die that abortion is a valid option but I don't believe in abortion for less extreme cases)

your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

But we aren't talking about living things are we? We are talking about human living things.

Is DNA enough? Not really. Legal systems recognize a multitude of special categories for human beings that determine rights and responcibilities in regards to a certain legal question. The question here is if there should be a special category for unborn children.

Alright, but does the punishment fit the crime? Having to raise an unwanted child for years because... one night of heavy intoxication? A condomn breaking? A rape?

Are you a man or a woman? Generally gender doesn't matter in a debate, but in this case it does. As a man you would not have to suffer such risk as a result of unprotected sex.
I am a woman and I believe that almost all those cases are unavoidable, (not rape, I know all too well that you can't avoid that) you need to be responsible if you don't want a kid don't have sex. It is that simple

the only real question worth looking at is "when is it a human life?" As soon as it is, there is no debate, it's right to live superseeds the woman's right. Unless the woman's life is in serious jepordy, that's a whole nother matter.

As to the answer to the question, I have no idea when it is a human life, and that's why it's such a hard issue, and why I don't have a firm position.

My only firm position is that a human's right to life is above another human's right of choice to carry a baby to term or not.

Alright, but does the punishment fit the crime? Having to raise an unwanted child for years because... one night of heavy intoxication? A condomn breaking? A rape?

Are you a man or a woman? Generally gender doesn't matter in a debate, but in this case it does. As a man you would not have to suffer such risk as a result of unprotected sex.

I'm a guy and I put the "usually" in my last post because of the possibility of rape. Here I am sympathetic but the child should not have to pay for the bastard who did the crime. If the woman doesn't want to raise the child there is always adoption.

If you don't make legalised women who are desperate will goto back alley clinics instead and could do serious harm to themselves.
Also why is a fetus more of a human life than my sperm cells? Am I commiting genocide everytime I splooge?

You are if you're Catholic. Onanism and all that. "Ev'ry Sperm Is Sacred."

But we aren't talking about living things are we? We are talking about human living things.

Is DNA enough? Not really. Legal systems recognize a multitude of special categories for human beings that determine rights and responcibilities in regards to a certain legal question. The question here is if there should be a special category for unborn children.
my point is that a fetus is a human life because
a it's human
and
b it's alive
likening it to a sperm cell isn't a fair comparison when you are deciding whether or not to kill it.

Well, on a basic level I go by "It's better to regret not having a child then it is to regret having a child."

Also, I will not contest that a fetus is alive. It is composed of living human tissue, yes. However, I don't see how a growth of living human tissue that hasn't yet developed brain functions has the right to tap the resources of another, fully-developed person's body against their will, especially since not even another fully-developed person has that right.

Moving on to my personal feelings, I don't really see anything special about a fetus. It's not so great, just a lump o' flesh. In fact, I don't think babies, or children, or adults are all that special in general. What makes a person special is the links they form with other people. People are special to me because I form relationships with them, and I'm special to a few people because they care about me. If I feel sad because someone I don't know has died, it basically because I empathize with the way the people who were connected to that person must feel. An unwanted fetus isn't special, where a wanted fetus would be to the people who want it.

For myself, if I ever ended up pregnant somehow I would most likely have an abortion, because a baby would mess up my life in so many ways. I wouldn't even carry it to term and give it up for adoption, because frankly, the thought of something growing inside me and living off my body is horrifying. And pregnancy and birth sound like about as much fun as boiling your eyeballs. Call me selfish, you're probably right.

Those are some of my reasons for being pro-choice. Above all is that a woman should have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

I am a woman and I believe that almost all those cases are unavoidable, (not rape, I know all too well that you can't avoid that) you need to be responsible if you don't want a kid don't have sex. It is that simple

But the question isn't about avoidability. Yes you can avoid all sex, but rape. However, this is about a certain wrong (let's say unprotected sex when you are an immature teen) that is rather slight in the grand scheme of things being heavily punished.

Unprotected sex doesn't hurt anyone. But the consequences are disasterous. Basically, the punishment doesn't fit the wrong.

I'm a guy and I put the "usually" in my last post because of the possibility of rape. Here I am sympathetic but the child should not have to pay for the bastard who did the crime. If the woman doesn't want to raise the child there is always adoption.
Yes, but I know first-hand (worked in a family attorney's office over two years) that many times, there's no way for a woman to cover both hospital and adoption costs. When that's the case, what other choice is there? The reason they're looking at adoption in the FIRST place, many times is because they can't afford a baby. I think those cases need to be considered as well as rape.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

Not until it can survive outside the womb as a non-parasite/symbiote. That's actually a change for me. I used to answer that by saying "not 'til he's in my phone book."

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

No it does not have rights it is not yet a thinking feeling being. As in acourdance to kant's philosoph therome the only valuable thing in life is our free choice ability through rationality. Only rational beings must abide by the laws and only rational beings can be protected. A zigot has no rationality of any sort hence it can not be protected by the law unless doing thus would cause behavior paterns that would make them harm other rational beings. That is why child abuse is bad because it causes behavior problems that harm other fully developed humans.

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

And the impregnating man...?

my point is that a fetus is a human life because
a it's human
and
b it's alive
likening it to a sperm cell isn't a fair comparison when you are deciding whether or not to kill it.

I agree that "a sperm is like a fetus" is a false analogy. But, once again, the real question is does this particular human life in this particular circumstance deserve the rights that human life generally has been granted?

my point is that a fetus is a human life because
a it's human
and
b it's alive
likening it to a sperm cell isn't a fair comparison when you are deciding whether or not to kill it.
Careful...a male gamete (ie, sperm) isn't technically a cell as it can't reproduce. A cell is technically alive, sperm is not.

Well, on a basic level I go by "It's better to regret not having a child then it is to regret having a child." Is it then better for an unwanted child to be murdered than to live unwanted?(I am talking here about an actual child not a fetus)

btw if they could scientifically prove to me when the fetus becomes a child, I may change my stance. right now we don't know, so I err on the side of caution.

Above all is that a woman should have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.
sure and if she chooses to have sex then she is choosing with full knowledge that she might get pregnant (getting raped doesn't count as choosing to have sex, so she may have more options)

Olara']This is an issue with which I have struggled for a couple of years, now. The closest I've been able to get is that a zygote fully contains a separate human life, ie, that zygote is genetically different from any other human being and everything the zygote needs to become a fully developed human being is contained within itself. I'd appreciate any thoughts from anyone.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Every single human cell contains every piece of information needed to develop an entire human being, and, while every human cell is not genetically different from every human cell, different cells within the same person are genetically different (often from any other human cel).

Thus, your definition includes individual human cells as human persons.

And the impregnating man...?

Him too of course.

Olara']Careful...a male gamete (ie, sperm) isn't technically a cell as it can't reproduce. A cell is technically alive, sperm is not.
true, I was talking to someone who doesn't know that, he wanted to know why his "sperm cells" were less human than a fetus

I oversimplified for his sake.;)

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.




There is no doubt that the fetus is alive, however life begins before conception. The sperm and egg cells are very much alive, so the question becomes what makes a human human? One might argue DNA, but I think we can all agree that a collection of stem cells in a petry dish is not human, even though they have human DNA and could theoretically become human via cloning. In my mind what seperates humans is the human mind. In order for something to be human we it has to have a human brain. Would you consider something a human if it had it's mind replaced by a computer? I would not, but we can do artificial hearts, kidney (dialisis), etc and there is no doubt the person remains human. So the question (for me) becomes when does a fetus have a human brain? (when are it's brain waves indistringuishable from other animals?) The answer is around the beginning to middle of the seventh month. Thus, I would support abortion durring the first 6th months of pregnancy, and after that only in the case of danger to the mother.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

My line of thinking is that, even supposing that it were immoral abort the fetus (which I am not entirely sold on), it would be even more immoral, not to mention patently impractical, for the state to legislate the matter of whether she can or cannot have an abortion. I say immoral because there are some domains where the state by definition has no moral authority to govern over, even supposing a duty by the government to produce moral citizens. I say impractical because if I can't honestly say that I know what the absolute right choice is in this matter, I have a hard time seeing how a bunch of suits in the legislature would either. As such, the responsibility for the decision ought to be placed squarely where it belongs, with the individual making the decision.

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.

I don't suppose it has occured to you that sometimes abortion is the responsible thing to do? Not all abortions are performed on teenage nymphos, you know: there are as many performed on mothers and older women. In those cases, where a woman already has four children while she and her husband can only pay for three and his condom broke, or where a forty-year-old woman faces bleeding to death if she actually has the child, I would call abortion in those instances the responsible thing to do. The mother has a responsibility to providing for her children, and a woman has the responsibility to maintain her own life.

I agree that "a sperm is like a fetus" is a false analogy. But, once again, the real question is does this particular human life in this particular circumstance deserve the rights that human life generally has been granted?
I believe it does, until we can scientifically prove that it doesn't

Usually their own damn fault. Women who get pregnant should take responsibility for their situation instead of killing their unborn child as an easy way out.
babies should never be punishments

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

Unnecessarily emotive language. By nearly every commonly used definition, the world child refers to a born entity. Even by the most liberal definition, the word refers to, at the earliest, a fetus. Most abortions do not involve fetuses, but involve embryos. Thus, the vast majority of abortions do not involve a child, unless (a) the mother is a child or (b) a very uncommon definition of the word is used.

Edit: I sent this right before I saw [NS]Simonist 's post.

Watch out! Your prejudices are showing! My post was very, very similar to Simonists's, expressing basically the same sentiments, but only his is to be considered logical? Uh oh!

murder is always wrong, that is absolute morality, you have to weigh the benifits with the cost (truth be known I am not really pro-Life or pro-choice because I believe that in circumstances where the mother and baby will die that abortion is a valid option but I don't believe in abortion for less extreme cases)
Murder is always wrong is a tautology (rather than absolute morality). By definition murder is an illegal killing and by definition illegal acts are acts that have been legislated as wrong.
This is irrelevent to abortion because abortion cannot be murder unless it is illegal and if it is murder it is only murder because of legislation that deems it so.

the only real question worth looking at is "when is it a human life?" As soon as it is, there is no debate, it's right to live superseeds the woman's right. Unless the woman's life is in serious jepordy, that's a whole nother matter.
I dont see 'when is it a human life' as being relevent; it is a human life when we think it is. By that logic we could decide that a human life commenced at 5 and thus justify not extending any prima facie right to not be killed to persons under 5 years of age. 'Human life' is a categorisation, whatever criteria are posited will decide what fits within the label. I dont see how chucking a certain label on something justifies the treatment that something recieves.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

it is LEGALLY and in every other way not a seperate life until its birth until then it is a part of a womans body, just as you cant and should not be allowed to stop her cutting her hand off or any body part, you cannot tell someone what to do with their own body.

I don't suppose it has occured to you that sometimes abortion is the responsible thing to do? Not all abortions are performed on teenage nymphos, you know: there are as many performed on mothers and older women. In those cases, where a woman already has four children while she and her husband can only pay for three and his condom broke, or where a forty-year-old woman faces bleeding to death if she actually has the child, I would call abortion in those instances the responsible thing to do. The mother has a responsibility to providing for her children, and a woman has the responsibility to maintain her own life.
no, the responsible thing to do is to realize that there are consequences for your actions, if you don't want a child then don't have sex.

it is LEGALLY not a seperate life until its birth until then it is a part of a womans body, just as you cant and should not be allowed to stop her cutting her hand off or any body part, you cannot tell someone what to do with their own body.
uh actually that depends where you live, in my state if you kill a pregnant woman you can get charged with 2 counts of murder. abortion is still legal here though. go figure:rolleyes:

no, the responsible thing to do is to realize that there are consequences for your actions, if you don't want a child then don't have sex.

What if you are married? Should my wife and I remain celibate?

The problem I have with people who are pro-life is their attitude that their beliefs should be made into law. Believe what you want to believe and change people's minds if you can. But once you make it into law, you are doing nothing but making it a crime to have a differing opinion. Abortions are as old as sex itself and they are not going to go away. Women will go to back alley clinics or to other countries that will give them abortions to defend their rights over their own bodies.
If you are on the religious right, take a cue from your Christ and lead by example and not by changing law. And please notice the IF.

Murder is always wrong is a tautology (rather than absolute morality). By definition murder is an illegal killing and by definition illegal acts are acts that have been legislated as wrong.
This is irrelevent to abortion because abortion cannot be murder unless it is illegal and if it is murder it is only murder because of legislation that deems it so.

point taken, although I disagree with the tautology statement.

Is it then better for an unwanted child to be murdered than to live unwanted?(I am talking here about an actual child not a fetus)

btw if they could scientifically prove to me when the fetus becomes a child, I may change my stance. right now we don't know, so I err on the side of caution.

I generally use that for people who decide whether or not to have children... But no, I don't think you should kill unwanted children. However, I'd say it's better to dispose of an unwanted fetus than to give birth to an unwanted child.

sure and if she chooses to have sex then she is choosing with full knowledge that she might get pregnant (getting raped doesn't count as choosing to have sex, so she may have more options)

And when you drive a car you are choosing with full knowledge that you might get in an accident, but you don't refuse people medical care when they get in car accidents.

There is no doubt that the fetus is alive, however life begins before conception. The sperm and egg cells are very much alive, so the question becomes what makes a human human? One might argue DNA, but I think we can all agree that a collection of stem cells in a petry dish is not human, even though they have human DNA and could theoretically become human via cloning. In my mind what seperates humans is the human mind. In order for something to be human we it has to have a human brain. Would you consider something a human if it had it's mind replaced by a computer? I would not, but we can do artificial hearts, kidney (dialisis), etc and there is no doubt the person remains human. So the question (for me) becomes when does a fetus have a human brain? (when are it's brain waves indistringuishable from other animals?) The answer is around the beginning to middle of the seventh month. Thus, I would support abortion durring the first 6th months of pregnancy, and after that only in the case of danger to the mother.

Yeay you are anouther kantest congradulations on seeing the light

Watch out! Your prejudices are showing! My post was very, very similar to Simonists's, expressing basically the same sentiments, but only his is to be considered logical? Uh oh!
HERS, Dem....hers. And I don't think it's a matter of prejudice, unless you have a past history of butting heads with the OP, because I've never debated them before.

But yeah, our posts were pretty similar, I was a little upset that I was still writing while you were posting, otherwise I would've been more concise.

I don't suppose it has occured to you that sometimes abortion is the responsible thing to do? Not all abortions are performed on teenage nymphos, you know: there are as many performed on mothers and older women. In those cases, where a woman already has four children while she and her husband can only pay for three and his condom broke, or where a forty-year-old woman faces bleeding to death if she actually has the child, I would call abortion in those instances the responsible thing to do. The mother has a responsibility to providing for her children, and a woman has the responsibility to maintain her own life.

Why didn't the parents make sure that they wouldn't have any more children? I'm sure it is not THAT expensive. Being poor is no reason to have an abortion.

I believe it does, until we can scientifically prove that it doesn't

But there's the trap. Half of this issue is science the other half is political and moral philosophy.

The thinkers and their ideas that our society has used to recongnize human rights isn't based on the warm, fuzzy feeling, of saying the words 'human rights.'

There are a number of idealogies involved here but basically it tends to come down to the fact that people have free will. We are rational and we can decide our own fate. Even if a fetus is scientifically human, does it fit into the category of human for the purposes of rights to be protected? A fetus must be able to think, to be self-aware, to even meet a minimum requirement of free will.

What if you are married? Should my wife and I remain celibate?
I am married and remained celebate for a while until my husband could be sterilized because another pregnancy would have made me very sick. It is not difficult, sex isn't as important as a human life.

Piekrom']Yeay you are anouther kantest congradulations on seeing the light

Thanks.... What do you mean by Kantest? (Immanuel Kant? Is my argument similar to his?)

babies should never be punishments

Why not? It is what happens when you have sex. Take responsibility and don't kill your child.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Every single human cell contains every piece of information needed to develop an entire human being, and, while every human cell is not genetically different from every human cell, different cells within the same person are genetically different (often from any other human cel).

Thus, your definition includes individual human cells as human persons.
IIRC, somatic cells have had much of their DNA "turned off," often irreversibly. Therefore, they do not have all the information needed to become a full human being.

And I don't think there are many cells which are genetically unique. There are some due to mutation, but not many, and as I said earlier, IIRC, they don't have all the information to become a completely developed human being anymore.

Even if a fetus is scientifically human, does it fit into the category of human for the purposes of rights to be protected? A fetus must be able to think, to be self-aware, to even meet a minimum requirement of free will.
and a lot of the mentally ill that I used to work with, they are not less than human, if I went around killing them because they were inconvient that would be a problem. The whole "human but not a real human" thing bothers me a lot.

Thanks.... What do you mean by Kantest? (Immanuel Kant? Is my argument similar to his?)

Yes Immanuel kant and his theory of moral values

I am married and remained celebate for a while until my husband could be sterilized because another pregnancy would have made me very sick. It is not difficult, sex isn't as important as a human life.

But 1) We eventually do wish to have children
2) Even sterilization is not 100% effective (99% yes, but doing condoms, spermicides and the pill in combination has similar effectiveness)

And when you drive a car you are choosing with full knowledge that you might get in an accident, but you don't refuse people medical care when they get in car accidents.
an abortion is an elective procedure, not an emergency procedure.

it isn't a fair comparison.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

Absolutely. As soon as it becomes a child, it can invoke those rights. As long as it is a fetus that requires a woman to undergo a great deal of trauma to maintain it, her rights trump. The fact that it is not a person yet is continuously upheld which is why killing a pregnant woman is not a double homicide.

I'm sorry but unless someone can prove to me reasonably (without invoking philosophical or religious arguments) that aborting a fetus is demonstrably different than a condom or an device that prevents the zygote from implanting, then we can't impose our beliefs on others. Notice, I said our beliefs, I would never encourage an abortion or wish a woman I impregnated got one.

your sperm cells are not alive.

Really? That's news to biologists. Would you please personally correct every biologist in existence then?

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

These things are used to describe species, not "all living things". Every individual cell is technically alive (until it dies). However, an organism must be able to do these things as an entity.

If you remove the reproduction requirement, you are close to the definition of a living organism (so long as the requirements all include that the entire entity does these things). Generally, the requirements used are:

-Obtains and uses nutrients
-Growth and development
-Response to stimuli
-Excretes wastes

The problem here is that an embryo or early fetus, as an entity, does not meet these requirements. Every individual cell will respond to certain stimuli, just as every individual cell in your body does. However, you, unlike an embryo/early fetus, can respond to stimuli *as an entity*. Your bodily systems work together to produce that response. Up until a rudimentary nervous system is developed (generally around the end of the first trimester), an embryo/fetus cannot respond to stimuli as an entity, and thus does not meet the requirements herein.

my point is that a fetus is a human life because
a it's human
and
b it's alive
likening it to a sperm cell isn't a fair comparison when you are deciding whether or not to kill it.

A sperm cell is just as alive as a zygote or embryo, at least by biological definitions.

no, the responsible thing to do is to realize that there are consequences for your actions, if you don't want a child then don't have sex.

. . .So you are honestly holding the position that two married people should never have sex except when they want to and are absolutely, lock, stock, and barrell able to afford having kids?

I'll leave the obvious foolhardiness of one possible answer to that question hanging out there for all to see, and proceed onto another point: how is having an abortion abrogating people's responsibility to "realize that there are consequences for your actions"? Put more simply, how is having an abortion not taking responsibility for your actions? As I said before, a mother of several babies whose husband simply does not make enough to support more is taking responsibility for the situation: she's taking responsibility for any guilt she may (and probably will) face in exchange for making sure that her children have dinner every night. That sounds like a pretty frappin' responsible person to me.

and a lot of the mentally ill that I used to work with, they are not less than human, if I went around killing them because they were inconvient that would be a problem. The whole "human but not a real human" thing bothers me a lot.

And the mentally ill are often a distinguished category of persons. We can't kill them of course, but if a fetus, like a mentally ill person, isn't like a normal person then it also shouldn't be allowed the rights of a normal person.

And when you drive a car you are choosing with full knowledge that you might get in an accident, but you don't refuse people medical care when they get in car accidents.

Why do people use analogies that make no sense? A car is not a human being. There is no escaping the simple fact that women who get abortions just don't want responsibility. Have fun of course but when you get that little consequence people don't step up.

Yes, yes, quite, what is with all this talk of abortion and women's rights? I say that if a second class citizen such as a female wishes to was things stuck in itself then she should pay the consequences. And if a man rapes it then it should be grateful that one so great and complex as a man has planted his seed in it!

And this talk of womens rights to the vote, what is all this rubbish, all that females are good for is staying at home, taking care of snot nosed girls and perfect little boys. The female race is inferior according to many studies, accept it.

You cannot spell woman without man.


A woman is nothing more than a piece of cow crap who deserves no rights, a woman should not be able to choose anythign and should not question authority.


Why should a woman be able to chose what do to with it's body? Why should a woman have any chocie at all, A WOMAN SHOULD NOT. POWER TO THE MEN!







Get my point?



Edit: By the way, you forget one thing you prolifers... you forget that fetuses are incapable of coherent thought. If we say oh yes fetuses are definitley human than why not make any other insect or animal human aswell?


I love it how you guys are Pro-life, that makes me and the rest of the logical world, Pro-Death, well, i am pro-death, im for the death sentence, for abortion and etc... so... if you can find FACTS that say that fetuses are completley capable of coherent thought than be my guest, also if you find any facts that women SHOULD not have the choice to do as they want with their bodies, show me that too....


What occurs to me every time is that prolifers go : eh...fetuses live....now you pro choice people give me a great long arguement why your point is right even though i didnt give you one.

But 1) We eventually do wish to have children
2) Even sterilization is not 100% effective (99% yes, but doing condoms, spermicides and the pill in combination has similar effectiveness)
I can agree that sterilization isn't 100% effective but after 2 years with no pregnancy I can't complain

btw both of my kids were unexpected, condoms, birth control and condoms with birthcontrol apparently don't work.

by still having sex with my husband even though I understand the less than 1% risk of getting pregnant, I am still responisible for my actions and if I showed up pregnant tomorrow I would have the child.

an abortion is an elective procedure, not an emergency procedure.

it isn't a fair comparison.

Okay then, if a person eats undercooked meat it's with the possibility that they could get a tapeworm. Would you deny them the right to remove their tapeworm?

...okay, that was just silly. :D

And the mentally ill are often a distinguished category of persons. We can't kill them of course, but if a fetus, like a mentally ill person, isn't like a normal person then it also shouldn't be allowed the rights of a normal person.
my problem is that there are even people who try to segregate "people" and "normal people" into seperate groups, by doing that no matter how well you define it, someone unintended will get hurt. It is much easier and safer to say that people are people and all of them deserve the same rights.

I can agree that sterilization isn't 100% effective but after 2 years with no pregnancy I can't complain

btw both of my kids were unexpected, condoms, birth control and condoms with birthcontrol apparently don't work.

by still having sex with my husband even though I understand the less than 1% risk of getting pregnant, I am still responisible for my actions and if I showed up pregnant tomorrow I would have the child.
Maybe you're just super-verile. I was unplanned (my mum found out about me during her consultation to tie her tubes), but after mum got tied off they've never had another child.
And I like it that way. Youngest is best.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Here are a few:

1. It is not about whether the fetus is a human life. Skin cells are human life. We value persons, not merely human life. Fetuses are not persons.

2. We are rarely talking about fetuses anyway. Most abortions are of zygotes or embryos.

3. Fetuses have less claim to personhood -- than to a right to life -- than chimpanzees, dolphins, and pigs. We routinely kill those entities, particularly the latter.

4. Regardless of whether a fetus is a person, it has less claim to the body of the woman than the woman herself. The mother is the only undeniably human living person with rights in the equation. Control over one's own body is a most fundamental right -- one that cannot be taken away even to save the life of another.

5. Think about why we have rights and what rights are. Why would a fetus have rights? Why wouldn't a pig? Why would a fetus have greater rights than the mother?

Why do people use analogies that make no sense? A car is not a human being. There is no escaping the simple fact that women who get abortions just don't want responsibility. Have fun of course but when you get that little consequence people don't step up.
Easy, now, don't generalize like that. There are women, and probably more than you or I realize, who don't have an abortion for that reason. Cases of rape, incest, etc. It hurts our cause to lump all women who seek abortions into one category and then berate them.

. . .So you are honestly holding the position that two married people should never have sex except when they want to and are absolutely, lock, stock, and barrell able to afford having kids?

I'll leave the obvious foolhardiness of one possible answer to that question hanging out there for all to see, and proceed onto another point: how is having an abortion abrogating people's responsibility to "realize that there are consequences for your actions"? Put more simply, how is having an abortion not taking responsibility for your actions? As I said before, a mother of several babies whose husband simply does not make enough to support more is taking responsibility for the situation: she's taking responsibility for any guilt she may (and probably will) face in exchange for making sure that her children have dinner every night. That sounds like a pretty frappin' responsible person to me.

Perhaps people should do the smart thing and get married when they are financially secure? Besides if you have enough kids or don't want them... well snip, snip and the issue is taken care of.

Okay then, if a person eats undercooked meat it's with the possibility that they could get a tapeworm. Would you deny them the right to remove their tapeworm?

...okay, that was just silly. :D




But...but...but


Tapeworms live, how can you deny their right to live, poor tapeworms... and plus they might be human, they are living in any case!;)

I believe it does, until we can scientifically prove that it doesn't

Personal belief is a fine thing, and something every individual should live by.

However, forcing personal belief into legislation is generally not a good idea. If you cannot demonstrate, objectively, that you are correct, then your belief simply isn't enough to form legislation. People believe that women should cover their heads, but I doubt you would support legislation based on that. People believe that certain ethnicities are better than others, but I doubt you would support legislation based on that.

It is the person who wishes to legislate that must provide a reason for that.

uh actually that depends where you live, in my state if you kill a pregnant woman you can get charged with 2 counts of murder. abortion is still legal here though. go figure

The only cases (at least thus far) in which any such laws have been used is in cases where the fetus was already viable. Thus, a woman couldn't get an abortion at that point either, except in extreme circumstances - generally in which her health is in extreme danger or the fetus is insupportably deformed.

If a woman smokes or drinks while pregnant, would those of you who are pro-life charge her with endangering the welfare of a child? What if she took unnessary risks like bungee jumping? I refer here to the many, many pregnant women I have myself took bungee jumping.

People keep saying women's rights, which is bunk because the fetus has rights. Even if you say it's not distinctively human, animals have rights too. It amazes me that people who are PeTA supporters can also be pro-choice.

Anyway, for all those people bitching about "what about rape," or "the condom broke," or "I was drunk" or whatever other excuse...there's this great thing called a morning after pill. It's not abortion because the egg hasn't been fertilized yet. I have no problems with this method of avoiding a pregnancy. Otherwise, the only acceptable time for abortion is if it is 100% necessary to save the life of the mother, and it can be demonstrated that by performing the abortion the mother will live. Otherwise, we've got drugs to induce miscarriages for those who get raped, we've got drugs to prevent pregnancy, we've got drugs to avoid pregnancy.

Be responsible. Don't screw unprotected unless you're willing to have a kid, and if there's an emergency, take care of it immediately. Don't wait 3 months when the baby actually has a heartbeat or six months when the baby actually begins to move around of it's own volition. And definitely don't wait 8 months, have the doctor make the baby come out breach, stick a vacuum backed syringe into the base of the skull and suck out the brain of a being that can surive ex-utero. That's exactly what a partial birth abortion is btw. Watch a video of one if you want proof.

. . .So you are honestly holding the position that two married people should never have sex except when they want to and are absolutely, lock, stock, and barrell able to afford having kids?
Sex isn't a required activity, if you don't want kids, are unable to afford them, ect. don't have sex. it is that simple.

I'll leave the obvious foolhardiness of one possible answer to that question hanging out there for all to see, and proceed onto another point: how is having an abortion abrogating people's responsibility to "realize that there are consequences for your actions"? I see so many people on here that say "oh but what if I got drunk, surely I didn't mean to get pregnant"
it doesn't make sense to me, you know that if you have sex you might get pregnant, how is pregnancy a surprise then after you know you had sex.
As I said before, a mother of several babies whose husband simply does not make enough to support more is taking responsibility for the situation: she's taking responsibility for any guilt she may (and probably will) face in exchange for making sure that her children have dinner every night. That sounds like a pretty frappin' responsible person to me.
or..............she could NOT HAVE SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then she wouldn't have the added expense of an abortion.

Olara']Easy, now, don't generalize like that. There are women, and probably more than you or I realize, who don't have an abortion for that reason. Cases of rape, incest, etc. It hurts our cause to lump all women who seek abortions into one category and then berate them.

I realize that rape is a horrid thing but like I said previously even with that case the unborn child shouldn't have to pay.

Perhaps people should do the smart thing and get married when they are financially secure? Besides if you have enough kids or don't want them... well snip, snip and the issue is taken care of.



Theres an easy way to do what you are proposing, shoot everybody who does not have a sufficiently large income to send their kids to university and support them.

Why do people use analogies that make no sense? A car is not a human being. There is no escaping the simple fact that women who get abortions just don't want responsibility. Have fun of course but when you get that little consequence people don't step up.

I think it is quite clear that women who get abortions don't want babies. Or maybe some want babies, just not at the time. But hey, who can blame a person who doesn't want to take responsibility for a squalling loaf of flesh? And personally, I think getting rid of a lump of cells is much more responsible than getting rid of a full grown baby (by adoption, not killing. Though if every unwanted fetus was aborted there wouldn't be anymore trashcan babies). I mean, how is it any more responsible to say 'I don't want this anymore, YOU take it.' Meh.

And of course a car is not a human being. I never claimed it was.

my problem is that there are even people who try to segregate "people" and "normal people" into seperate groups, by doing that no matter how well you define it, someone unintended will get hurt. It is much easier and safer to say that people are people and all of them deserve the same rights.

Safer but otherwise untenable. Will you have the mentally ill voting in elections? Going to prison for their crimes? In fact, aren't the mentally ill often committed by the state to some sort of healing institution?

1. It is not about whether the fetus is a human life. Skin cells are human life. We value persons, not merely human life. Fetuses are not persons...

5. Think about why we have rights and what rights are. Why would a fetus have rights? Why wouldn't a pig? Why would a fetus have greater rights than the mother?

QTF

Exactly my point all long.

The only cases (at least thus far) in which any such laws have been used is in cases where the fetus was already viable. Thus, a woman couldn't get an abortion at that point either, except in extreme circumstances - generally in which her health is in extreme danger or the fetus is insupportably deformed.
true, but I was responding to someone who said that a fetus isn't legally
a person and I was pointing out they must be in some instances or you couldn't get in trouble for murdering them.

Perhaps people should do the smart thing and get married when they are financially secure? Besides if you have enough kids or don't want them... well snip, snip and the issue is taken care of.
I agree with this one hundred percent! Why marry for love or anything like that??? In fact, I think we should bring back the dowry. After all, it is the women who have babies and not the men and children are a huge expense. They all end up wanting I-Pods and Gap Clothing. I think women should come with a large chunk of that financial obligation.

Safer but otherwise untenable. Will you have the mentally ill voting in elections? Going to prison for their crimes? In fact, aren't the mentally ill often committed by the state to some sort of healing institution?

but we aren't talking about letting fetuses vote, we are talking about whether they have the right to live.

and then what about the rights of the child? doesn't it have the right to live?

Just out of curiosity, if the fetus is a child, why don't we have funerals for them when they are spontaneously aborted? I have yet to see a funeral for a fetus that aborted spontaneously by any that claim it deserves personhood. I mean, wouldn't your grandmother deserve a funeral? Is it an age thing?

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.


You're right man, i mean, who should give women a choice?


[/sarcasm]

I agree with this one hundred percent! Why marry for love or anything like that??? In fact, I think we should bring back the dowry. After all, it is the women who have babies and not the men and children are a huge expense. They all end up wanting I-Pods and Gap Clothing. I think women should come with a large chunk of that financial obligation.

Going extreme are we? Getting married when you can stand on your own two feet is good not only for your future children but for the couple also.

I realize that rape is a horrid thing but like I said previously even with that case the unborn child shouldn't have to pay.
No, I agree, the child shouldn't have to pay because some douchebag decided to rape a woman. I was just saying that calling a rape victim irresponsible is hurtful to the pro-life argument.

Personal belief is a fine thing, and something every individual should live by.

However, forcing personal belief into legislation is generally not a good idea. If you cannot demonstrate, objectively, that you are correct, then your belief simply isn't enough to form legislation. People believe that women should cover their heads, but I doubt you would support legislation based on that. People believe that certain ethnicities are better than others, but I doubt you would support legislation based on that.

It is the person who wishes to legislate that must provide a reason for that.



The only cases (at least thus far) in which any such laws have been used is in cases where the fetus was already viable. Thus, a woman couldn't get an abortion at that point either, except in extreme circumstances - generally in which her health is in extreme danger or the fetus is insupportably deformed.

Yes, exactly. I was talking about at the stages when abortion is legal.

I think it is quite clear that women who get abortions don't want babies. Or maybe some want babies, just not at the time. But hey, who can blame a person who doesn't want to take responsibility for a squalling loaf of flesh? And personally, I think getting rid of a lump of cells is much more responsible than getting rid of a full grown baby (by adoption, not killing. Though if every unwanted fetus was aborted there wouldn't be anymore trashcan babies). I mean, how is it any more responsible to say 'I don't want this anymore, YOU take it.' Meh.

And of course a car is not a human being. I never claimed it was.

Differnce is, the child is alive, maybe depressed at being put up for adoption but alive.

but we aren't talking about letting fetuses vote, we are talking about whether they have the right to live.

The voting thing was just an example. The point is that a fetus, like someone who is mentally ill, is in a different category of person, if a person at all, and cannot expect the same rights as a person.

Why didn't the parents make sure that they wouldn't have any more children? I'm sure it is not THAT expensive. Being poor is no reason to have an abortion.

Perhaps you should check into that before you make silly statements. All healthcare is expensive. Suppose a woman wanted to have a tubal ligation. That alone would require more money than the impoverished have, especially if they are struggling just to put food on the table. Then you add in the fact that she would likely have to miss work (from at least one of her jobs) to do it, possibly losing her job....

Most of us can't even fathom the situations that others can be in.

Olara]IIRC, somatic cells have had much of their DNA "turned off," often irreversibly. Therefore, they do not have all the information needed to become a full human being.

There is no evidence to suggest that the information has been turned off permanently. In fact, in my area of study, we sometimes find exactly the opposite. Cells can transdifferentiate into other cells. Cells can be coaxed to dedifferentiate.

In every somatic cell, the information is there (even if it is currently turned off).

And I don't think there are many cells which are genetically unique. There are some due to mutation, but not many, and as I said

Most of the cells in your body have mutated by now. Some human beings are made up of two very separate sets of DNA - from before birth. This is because two embryos can fuse into one, and a person with two separate sets of DNA can be born.

People would like to believe that genetics and DNA are cut-and-dry subjects. They are not. Biology is much, much more complicated than that.

Simonist']Maybe you're just super-verile. I was unplanned (my mum found out about me during her consultation to tie her tubes), but after mum got tied off they've never had another child.
And I like it that way. Youngest is best.
actually my husband is, he has like 10 times the testosterone as a normal man and 4 times the sperm count (all mobile) that is why we got him tied, cut , and cauterized, if I had gotten tied the doctor said I probably would have ended up with an ectopic anyway.

The voting thing was just an example. The point is that a fetus, like someone who is mentally ill, is in a different category of person, if a person at all, and cannot expect the same rights as a person.
so mentally ill people aren't people? how mentally ill do you have to be? for example my mom is bipolar is she a person? what about the kid I baby sit who is autistic? is he a person?

Going extreme are we? Getting married when you can stand on your own two feet is good not only for your future children but for the couple also.


Yeah, like the above post, screw love, MONEY MONEY MONEY! MUST BE FUNNY! IN A RICH MANS WORLD!

How is it better for the couple? What if the couple doesnt want children... can you please back up your pointless arguements?


Can this unborn child of yours think for itself, i mean, is it proven that it does? Nope....so this unborn child is not technically why we value humans more than animals, it's brain isn't developed enough to be.


edited to remove expletives.

actually my husband is, he has like 10 times the testosterone as a normal man and 4 times the sperm count (all mobile) that is why we got him tied, cut , and cauterized, if I had gotten tied the doctor said I probably would have ended up with an ectopic anyway.
Your husband is probably the kind of man I fear marrying.... ;)

Anyway, it's been graceful, but I have to bow out. To summarize: apparently I had good points (they're on page one, post 8 I believe...), even from a pro-lifer....I'm still a girl....and adoption is really expensive, take my word for it.

Just out of curiosity, if the fetus is a child, why don't we have funerals for them when they are spontaneously aborted? I have yet to see a funeral for a fetus that aborted spontaneously by any that claim it deserves personhood. I mean, wouldn't your grandmother deserve a funeral? Is it an age thing?
I have actually been to many funerals for children who were miscarried. :( It is really sad when you lose a child, I doubt that the parents pain was any less than if they had "a real baby" as many cruel people say.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Although your restrictions are tantamount to asking someone to describe what "3" is without saying "1+2" or "3+0", I will suggest another argument.
In the contemporary abortion debate, there are only 2 non-hypocritical positions: complete ban on all abortions, or 100% pro-choice in all situations. Since I cannot, in good conscience, force a woman who has become pregnant by being raped to extend the trauma and horror of that experience for, at least, 9 more months (whether she would be able and willing to give the resultant child up for adoption is irrelevant to whether or not she should be forced to carry the embryo/fetus to term), the only non-hypocritical position available to me is 100% pro-choice. Similarly, if you're willing to allow an abortion in cases where the mother's health is in danger, then the only non-hypocritical position available is the 100% pro-choice positon.

<snip>
Interesting. I hadn't heard that, especially the part about two embryos fusing into one. I'm kind of disappointed in my genetics prof. for not informing us of that. Unless this discovery was made after 2003.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is it that you study?

Differnce is, the child is alive, maybe depressed at being put up for adoption but alive.



Oh yes, it's much better to have a depressed, mentally unstable child who might end up killing himself conciously, or might end up killing others than to abort when the luimp of cells can't even thing yet....


Much, much better to have a world of depressed people, isn't it?


Have you ever been depressed, do you even know what it is like?

If you did you would not dare say what you did.

so mentally ill people aren't people? how mentally ill do you have to be? for example my mom is bipolar is she a person? what about the kid I baby sit who is autistic? is he a person?

The "if a person at all" was in reference to a fetus.

Are the mentally ill persons, though a different caterogy of persons? Yes.

What kind of mental disease is enough to put someone into this other category? I don't know, I'm not a therapist. Off the cuff I would say any disease that seriously impairs self-awareness and rational thought.

true, but I was responding to someone who said that a fetus isn't legally
a person and I was pointing out they must be in some instances or you couldn't get in trouble for murdering them.

I think those cases go with the assumption that the fetus that died with the mother was wanted, and she therefore intended to carry it to term.

And before anyone considers saying something about how unwanted fetuses could be carried to term is well, I restate my opinion (and it's just that) that the only thing that makes a fetus worth anything is if it's wanted. Otherwise it's just a lump of unwanted cells.

Sex isn't a required activity, if you don't want kids, are unable to afford them, ect. don't have sex. it is that simple.

Yes but sex might be required for a happy, healthy marriage FOR SOME PEOPLE. The physical part of my relatoinship IS very important (deffinately not THE most important thing, but still important). I would rather take the 1% chance than see a healthy marriage go to pot.

Going extreme are we? Getting married when you can stand on your own two feet is good not only for your future children but for the couple also.
So, do that. Promote it. But other people make their own decisions and have every right to do so.

Anyway, for all those people bitching about "what about rape," or "the condom broke," or "I was drunk" or whatever other excuse...there's this great thing called a morning after pill. It's not abortion because the egg hasn't been fertilized yet.

Someone has steered you wrong, my dear. The purpose of the morning after pill is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg - to prevent implantation of an embryo.

Be responsible. Don't screw unprotected unless you're willing to have a kid, and if there's an emergency, take care of it immediately. Don't wait 3 months when the baby actually has a heartbeat or six months when the baby actually begins to move around of it's own volition. And definitely don't wait 8 months, have the doctor make the baby come out breach, stick a vacuum backed syringe into the base of the skull and suck out the brain of a being that can surive ex-utero. That's exactly what a partial birth abortion is btw. Watch a video of one if you want proof.

This is incorrect. That is not "exactly what a 'partial birth abortion' is". Dilation and extraction is performed either at the end of the 2nd trimester or (generally) the beginning of the third (not 8 months). This is not an elective procedure. It is carried out in accordance with the law on 3rd trimester abortions - namely that they can only occur if the woman's life is in danger, the fetus is dead, or the fetus has a deformity/disorder recognized by the law as being permissible (gross chromosomal defects, generally).

Simonist']Your husband is probably the kind of man I fear marrying.... ;)

Anyway, it's been graceful, but I have to bow out. To summarize: apparently I had good points (they're on page one, post 8 I believe...), even from a pro-lifer....I'm still a girl....and adoption is really expensive, take my word for it.
I have to go too, but before I leave (I might come back, though I doubt it)

I would like to point out that while I believe that abortion is murder, I don't think it should be illegal, there are certain cases where abortion should be an option just not all of them. If I had come up pregnant when I was raped I probably would have put the kid up for adoption, but I know others couldn't bear to live with the reminder long enough to carry the child full term.

Differnce is, the child is alive, maybe depressed at being put up for adoption but alive.

Between abortion and adoption, neither ends up with a dead child, and both end up with a woman free of the responsibility of raising a child.

Yes but sex might be required for a happy, healthy marriage FOR SOME PEOPLE. The physical part of my relatoinship IS very important (deffinately not THE most important thing, but still important). I would rather take the 1% chance than see a healthy marriage go to pot.
in my case the benifits outweigh the risks. a 1% chance compared to being with my hubby, yeah I will take those odds, all I am saying is that if I did get pregnant I would keep the kid.

Not to piss any of you off but I just found this bible passage that I found interesting. I guess put this in the category, "I can use the bible to support anything I might be saying." I honestly do not want to put down anyone's belief.

"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3

People keep saying women's rights, which is bunk because the fetus has rights. Even if you say it's not distinctively human, animals have rights too. It amazes me that people who are PeTA supporters can also be pro-choice.
Women and animals have rights (in those cases where they do) because the law grants them such rights.

Anyway, for all those people bitching about "what about rape," or "the condom broke," or "I was drunk" or whatever other excuse...there's this great thing called a morning after pill. It's not abortion because the egg hasn't been fertilized yet. I have no problems with this method of avoiding a pregnancy. Otherwise, the only acceptable time for abortion is if it is 100% necessary to save the life of the mother, and it can be demonstrated that by performing the abortion the mother will live.
That's nice in so far as you deciding for yourself. Other people might decide otherwise. It's really not your business what they decide or why, so far as I can see.

Otherwise, we've got drugs to induce miscarriages for those who get raped, we've got drugs to prevent pregnancy, we've got drugs to avoid pregnancy.
And we have abortions performed without drugs. Miscarraige is evidently abortion. I dont see any 'moral' difference betweem inducing abortion through drugs or inducing abortion through a D and C.

Be responsible.
Nice idea, but for the most part most people will be irresponsible in some way at some point. Then come the consequences, in the case of unwanted pregnancy the range of possible consequences includes abortion.

Don't screw unprotected unless you're willing to have a kid, and if there's an emergency, take care of it immediately.
Well that sounds rational, you are more than welcome to apply these ideas to yourself, and to give others advice accordingly. What I suggest you should not do, nor ought be allowed to do, is to coerce others into applying your ideas to their life.

Don't wait 3 months when the baby actually has a heartbeat or six months when the baby actually begins to move around of it's own volition. And definitely don't wait 8 months, have the doctor make the baby come out breach, stick a vacuum backed syringe into the base of the skull and suck out the brain of a being that can surive ex-utero. That's exactly what a partial birth abortion is btw. Watch a video of one if you want proof.
That probably explains why partial births are most often illegal.

Going extreme are we? Getting married when you can stand on your own two feet is good not only for your future children but for the couple also.

Getting married when you can stand on your own two feet is nice. However, there is a big difference being able to make it with your spouce and being able to financially support a child. Are you advocating that people save up money until they have enough to support a child before even getting married? Also keep in mind that being married HELPS a couple save money, it's much less expensive to feed and house and insure two together than two sperately.

Not to piss any of you off but I just found this bible passage that I found interesting. I guess put this in the category, "I can use the bible to support anything I might be saying." I honestly do not want to put down anyone's belief.

"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
taken out of context

Ecclesiastes 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes the life glad; and money is the answer for all things.

see I can make the bible support just about any stance I want too, now you can all go get drunk.:rolleyes:

Olara']Interesting. I hadn't heard that, especially the part about two embryos fusing into one. I'm kind of disappointed in my genetics prof. for not informing us of that. Unless this discovery was made after 2003.

Out of curiosity, what exactly is it that you study?

I am studying Bioengineering (as far as broad fields go). My particular interest is in Tissue Engineering, which has led me into the stem cell area. My advisor's general area of study is stem cell biology and the effect of oxygen on cells.

Don't worry about not having hear about embryo fusion. I didn't hear anything about it in any class until my graduate studies. Much like epigenetic traits, it isn't something that is talked about in more introductory genetics classes.

I would like to point out that while I believe that abortion is murder, I don't think it should be illegal, there are certain cases where abortion should be an option just not all of them.

Other than the abortion=murder part, you just described the pro-choice position to the tee. You won't find many, if any, people who think *all* abortion should be legal. No one (that I have seen) is advocating completely unregulated access to abortion.

Based on what you have said here, you are actually pro-choice. You simply have opinions different from others (and from the law, in some cases), on the exact circumstances under which abortion should be illegal.

Why are you not pro-abortion. It's the same as being against murder, but believing people should have the right to murder

in my case the benifits outweigh the risks. a 1% chance compared to being with my hubby, yeah I will take those odds, all I am saying is that if I did get pregnant I would keep the kid.

But what if you are unable to afford a child? (Condoms are a lot less expesive than dipers)

taken out of context

Ecclesiastes 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes the life glad; and money is the answer for all things.




So true...

Why are you not pro-abortion. It's the same as being against murder, but believing people should have the right to murder

That question barely makes any sense.

But as far as I can tell, many pro-choice people aren't fond of abortion personally, but don't feel it's their right to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her body.

I don't happen to be one of those people, but that seems to be the general concensus.

Why are you not pro-abortion. It's the same as being against murder, but believing people should have the right to murder




There is a quote by evelyn beatrice hall(which is usually misattributed to voltaire)

I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.


Same goes for freedom of choice.

By he way, people do have the right to murder, and thn they also have the right to be prosecuted. and the right to remain silent

Why are you not pro-abortion. It's the same as being against murder, but believing people should have the right to murder

It is only the same if you actually believe abortion to be murder, which most pro-choicers do not.

I am not pro-abortion because I believe, personally and morally, that is wrong. Of course, I also think that promiscuous sex is wrong, but I don't try to legislate that. I cannot demonstrate, objectively, that promiscuous sex is one person harming another, so I don't have a legal leg to stand on if I want to legislate against it.

Another reason is that I, personally and morally, attach a significance to the potential of an embryo/fetus. To me, what it will become is very important, and I do not personally feel that it is generally a good thing to stop that potential from reaching actuality. But, again, that is a personal moral and philosophical distinction, not an objective one.

Olara']Interesting. I hadn't heard that, especially the part about two embryos fusing into one. I'm kind of disappointed in my genetics prof. for not informing us of that. Unless this discovery was made after 2003.


Don't worry about not having hear about embryo fusion. I didn't hear anything about it in any class until my graduate studies. Much like epigenetic traits, it isn't something that is talked about in more introductory genetics classes.
That's bemusing because I read about it in an introductory level text.

The book isnt about genetics or bio engineering (or anything biologically technical) though. It's a philosophy text...go figure!:p

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Okay, first part of the issue: Is a fetus alive? Yes, of course it is. But many things are alive. Tumors are alive. So does abortion kill something that is alive? Yes. That's the easy part to determine.

Is a fetus a human life? That would be the grey area. At what point do we declare a zygote a human? At the moment of conception? Implantation? The first time the mother feels movement in her womb? There is no one answer to this question. There is no way for science to declare at what point "humanness" is granted to a fetus. There is only personal belief to guide us in our decision making on this. Personal belief which is usually guided by ones religious affiliation.

Because there is no way to conclusively determine when a zygote or fetus is a human, we must allow choice. It is impossible to declare abortion as either wholesale murder or as meaningless removal of a useless clump of cells. Every person must be able to look within themselves and find their own beliefs AND be able to act upon them. To do otherwise would be to reproductively enslave women, again.

For that reason, I am strongly pro-choice. For that same reason, I am strongly for an overall of America's adoption system. Open adoption needs to be a more viable alternative. It would save thousands of women a lifetime of heartbreak and make sure that more children were better taken care of. We need to give women a real choice when it comes to deciding between adoption and abortion. Right now, I don't see it as a realistic alternative. Go ahead and mock me for not having my sources, but many studies have shown that adoption (not open adoption) is vastly more traumatic to a woman than abortion is. And this issue is not being dealt with on the widespread scale that it needs to be.

Oh, and in response to Dempublicents1, actually I advocate open access to abortion. I don't believe that we can stand in judgement of every female* who seeks out an abortion. We cannot understand her situation and we cannot understand her personal beliefs. Who are we to say whether her abortion is a necessary one or not? One of the specters that is often raised is the woman who uses abortion as her only means of birth control. Even the highest statistics out there state that less than 1/10th of a percent of women who seek abortions are "misusing" them in this way. Again, I'm missing my sources and I apologize. They're in storage right now.

*I say female instead of woman because people often ignore the young teenagers who accidentally become pregnant.

Bill Hicks: You know who's really bugging me these days. These pro-lifers ... You ever look at their faces?
'I'm pro-life!' (Bill makes a pinched face of hate and fear, his lips are pursed as though he's just sucked on a lemon.) 'I'm pro-life!'
Boy, they look it don't they? They just exude joie de vivre. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long. You know what bugs me about them? If you're so pro-life, do me a favour - don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to this idea.
(Bill mimes the pursed lipped pro-lifers locking arms.) (as pro-lifer) She can't come in!(as confused member of funeral procession) She was 98. She was hit by a bus! (as pro-lifer) There's options! (as confused member of funeral procession) What else can we do? Have her stuffed?
I want to see pro-lifers with crowbars at funerals opening caskets - 'get out!' Then I'd be really impressed by their mission.
I was just waiting until the next pro-life dicussion to add this.

Piekrom']what about the many wemon who are raped each year or the babie is harmfull to the womans survival the problem I have with pro lifers is that they ignore cercumstances and situations and say it is always wrong. The rape victium never had a choice in having the baby.

Then she should give it up for adoption. Two wrongs do not make a right. If its a threat to her life then it is a medical operation and thus there is less of a moral objection.

Then she should give it up for adoption. Two wrongs do not make a right. If its a threat to her life then it is a medical operation and thus there is less of a moral objection.

An abortion will always be a medical operation unless your body does it naturally. Though we general call natural abortions 'miscarriages'.

Women and animals have rights (in those cases where they do) because the law grants them such rights.

Not the right to kill


That's nice in so far as you deciding for yourself. Other people might decide otherwise. It's really not your business what they decide or why, so far as I can see.

It may not be my business or anyone elses, but it is the business of the featus. Since it cannot defend itself it becomes our business to defend.


Well that sounds rational, you are more than welcome to apply these ideas to yourself, and to give others advice accordingly. What I suggest you should not do, nor ought be allowed to do, is to coerce others into applying your ideas to their life.

See above

Amen. I dont understand why other people dont think that way. The only strong pro choice argument on this thread so far is "well a woman could hurt her self during a backally abortion, which she will do if its outlawed.". Well good. She should hurt herself for trying to kill her unborn child.
Wow. That has to be the most disgusting thing I've ever heard a person say.

Then she should give it up for adoption. Two wrongs do not make a right. If its a threat to her life then it is a medical operation and thus there is less of a moral objection.
So women are just baby making machines, huh?

Oh, and in response to Dempublicents1, actually I advocate open access to abortion. I don't believe that we can stand in judgement of every female* who seeks out an abortion. We cannot understand her situation and we cannot understand her personal beliefs. Who are we to say whether her abortion is a necessary one or not? One of the specters that is often raised is the woman who uses abortion as her only means of birth control. Even the highest statistics out there state that less than 1/10th of a percent of women who seek abortions are "misusing" them in this way. Again, I'm missing my sources and I apologize. They're in storage right now.

When I said "open access to abortion," I was referring to someone who thinks a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time in her pregnancy - even as she is giving birth. Do you believe that? If not, you are in favor of restricting abortions to a given time period.

My point was that everyone, even those of us who are pro-choice, place a limit on when and how abortions should be obtained. Roe v. Wade placed many limitations, although people like to think that access is open and free at every step of the way.

Okay, first part of the issue: Is a fetus alive? Yes, of course it is. But many things are alive. Tumors are alive. So does abortion kill something that is alive? Yes. That's the easy part to determine.

Is a fetus a human life? That would be the grey area. At what point do we declare a zygote a human? At the moment of conception? Implantation? The first time the mother feels movement in her womb? There is no one answer to this question. There is no way for science to declare at what point "humanness" is granted to a fetus. There is only personal belief to guide us in our decision making on this. Personal belief which is usually guided by ones religious affiliation.

Because there is no way to conclusively determine when a zygote or fetus is a human, we must allow choice. It is impossible to declare abortion as either wholesale murder or as meaningless removal of a useless clump of cells. Every person must be able to look within themselves and find their own beliefs AND be able to act upon them. To do otherwise would be to reproductively enslave women, again.


A fetus is a human life because, if left to itself it has the capacity to grow into a human life. A tumour doesnt, nor does a clump of skin cells. It is developing and growing into a human life, thus killing it is killing a human, no matter how you dress it up. Choice because we dont know is not a valid defence because there is more than one life at issue. All you are giving choice to is the woman. You are not giving choice to the fetus, and there are two lives here. A womens own right to beliefs/choice do not outweigh the right to life of the fetus.

First off..im like really torn to the point i don't know what i beleive anymore..i don't like abortion one bit...but i believe in a certain ammount of privacy...
however i was thinking with the whole "she has a right to privacy" well lets use that same arguement with a muderer...Does he have the right to kill someone in privacy and use that not to get arrested? or how about a terrorist? can he plot to destroy things or people without any trouble because he did so in privacy? well i know those are a bit extreme..BUT have you seen what abortion victims(the fetus) looks like? all mangled... its horrible..I can maybe understand in certain cases like rape or possible death somehow....Thats what i have to say..if you dont like it...well poop on you(jk):p

An abortion will always be a medical operation unless your body does it naturally. Though we general call natural abortions 'miscarriages'.

By medical I refer here to reducing the threat of death. A medical opperation is one where you perform so to improve the persons health. Most women who get pregnant are not as a result likely to die. When they are it becomes a medical operation, as it is removing the threat of death.

A fetus is a human life because, if left to itself it has the capacity to grow into a human life. A tumour doesnt, nor does a clump of skin cells. It is developing and growing into a human life, thus killing it is killing a human, no matter how you dress it up. Choice because we dont know is not a valid defence because there is more than one life at issue. All you are giving choice to is the woman. You are not giving choice to the fetus, and there are two lives here. A womens own right to beliefs/choice do not outweigh the right to life of the fetus.
Left on its own a fetus rots. It requires nurturing from the woman's body to develop into an infant.

So really, those skin cells can be made into an individual human through cloning... and they just require a little nourishment and attention...

So skin cells are human lives! OMG! You're killing millions as you scratch your arm!

So women are just baby making machines, huh?

I didnt say that. Dont put words into my mouth. I said if a women gets raped she should have the child because two wrongs do not make a right.

taken out of context

Ecclesiastes 10:19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes the life glad; and money is the answer for all things.

see I can make the bible support just about any stance I want too, now you can all go get drunk.:rolleyes:
It seems you got my point? Good job!

By medical I refer here to reducing the threat of death. A medical opperation is one where you perform so to improve the persons health. Most women who get pregnant are not as a result likely to die. When they are it becomes a medical operation, as it is removing the threat of death.
No, either way it is a medical prodecure, just like if I go get a wart taken off my foot at a doctor's office it's a medical prodecure. It's not life threatening.

Not the right to kill

Humans and animals most certainly do have the right to kill. Are you telling me you've never heard of people eating beef and chicken?

A fetus is a human life because, if left to itself it has the capacity to grow into a human life.

Actually, left to itself, its cells will die and it will begin to rot, as will a tumor or a clump of skin cells.

It needs input from someone else to "grow into a human life."

It is developing and growing into a human life, thus killing it is killing a human, no matter how you dress it up.

If I burn lumber headed to a construction site, have I burned a house down?
If I give candy to a child, have I fed an adult?
If I help a 20-year old woman accross the street, have I helped a little old lady across the street?

You are committing an error here, by arguing that because it will be something, it already is that thing.

Choice because we dont know is not a valid defence because there is more than one life at issue.

....except that you don't know that.

You are not giving choice to the fetus, and there are two lives here.

The embryo/early fetus is incapable of choice.

A womens own right to beliefs/choice do not outweigh the right to life of the fetus.

For what reason does an embryo/early fetus have a "right to life" that my skin cells do not?

I didnt say that. Dont put words into my mouth. I said if a women gets raped she should have the child because two wrongs do not make a right.
?

So a woman who is innocently going about her business is raped and impregnated. And she should be forced to carry the child of the man who commited unspeakable horrors to her because you say so?

Basically you are saying that women are baby making machines, as any woman at any time can be raped and during any of these rapes, a woman can become pregnant. And you're saying that a woman should not get to abort the product of this act of violence?

Left on its own a fetus rots. It requires nurturing from the woman's body to develop into an infant.

A fetus naturally exists in a womens body in the first place. If it is left to itself in the womens body it will develop into a person. Removing it from thereto is as much killing as is removing a life support machine from someone.


So really, those skin cells can be made into an individual human through cloning... and they just require a little nourishment and attention...

So skin cells are human lives! OMG! You're killing millions as you scratch your arm!

Those cells are not actually developing into humans. Fetus cells are. They will be if you take them to a lab and start a cloning process, and if you kill the embryo's then, you have killed something. But if you cant see the diffrence between dormant skin cells and the first few cells of a human life, you are very stupid.

?

So a woman who is innocently going about her business is raped and impregnated. And she should be forced to carry the child of the man who commited unspeakable horrors to her because you say so?

Basically you are saying that women are baby making machines, as any woman at any time can be raped and during any of these rapes, a woman can become pregnant. And you're saying that a woman should not get to abort the product of this act of violence?

Yes, because no matter how wrong the person is to do it to her, its also wrong to kill the fetus. You are killing something, and thats wrong to do. Fact.

Yes, because no matter how wrong the person is to do it to her, its also wrong to kill the fetus. You are killing something, and thats wrong to do. Fact.
Do you eat meat?


Also, 90% of abortions happen to embryos, not fetuses.

A fetus naturally exists in a womens body in the first place. If it is left to itself in the womens body it will develop into a person. Removing it from thereto is as much killing as is removing a life support machine from someone.

Careful here, this could be interpreted as stating that women are nothing more than "life-support machines" for any fetus.

Most women do not have fetuses in their bodies. It is an addition - and a drain on her bodily systems. If I were hooked up to your bloodstream, being completely nourished off of it, and I would die if I were disconnected, would you not feel that you had a right to cut me off anyways?

Those cells are not actually developing into humans.

Irrelevant. If you are going to make the potentiality argument, it logically applies to everything with the potential to become a human being.

But if you cant see the diffrence between dormant skin cells and the first few cells of a human life, you are very stupid.

Careful here, you are flaming now.

Well, my stance is as follows:

A woman who doesn't want a child to grow up into her body has the right to refuse. To force her to carry a pregnancy she wouldn't want would be a crime against her right to decide what happens to her own body. The fetus would then become a "parasite" : it is effectively an organism that feeds off the woman's body without her consent.

Sure, you can argue that the fetus too has rights. However, the woman's rights has precedence: because she's already here, and she has consciousness of herself and the world around her. A fetus has neither.

So I'm pro-choice. However, the day we can effectively maintain and nurture a fetus outside of it's mother's womb, I'll be all for dumping abortion and using medical procedures to help the foestus grow and then be up for adoption. But meanwhile, abortion is the best of all the awful choices we have in front of us.

Also, I have much of a problem with the fact that most pro-life proponents, and the most vocal amongst them, are men. Men, who have no chance in hell of ever being stuck with a growing organism they do not want in their body. It's a pretty dubious stance,to get on your high horses and act all morally superior when speaking about something that has no chance in hell of happening to you.

Were I to be asked advice from a woman thinking of aborting, I'd probably be inclined to ask her to consider letting the child live and giving it into adoption if she was an adult. If she was a teenager, needless to say it is rather unhealthy for a girl of 14 or 16 to give birth at such a young age, so I suppose aborting would be reasonable.

Oh, and the best way to prevent abortions is NOT to illegalize the procedure: it's to give sex education and show kids how to properly put a condom or take the contraceptive pill. It would save all of us a lot of trouble thinking about the ethical and moral consequences of abortion if every teenager could do as much.

Yes, because no matter how wrong the person is to do it to her, its also wrong to kill the fetus. You are killing something, and thats wrong to do. Fact.
Killing something is not wrong to do. Murder is. You cannot prove to me or anyone else that is pro-choice that abortion is murder. It's a difference of opinion and one you'll have to live with.

A fetus naturally exists in a womens body in the first place. If it is left to itself in the womens body it will develop into a person. Removing it from thereto is as much killing as is removing a life support machine from someone.
No, a fetus does not naturally exist in a woman's body in the first place. I don't have a fetus in me right now, do I? I wasn't born with a fetus already in my womb, was I?
A fetus must get there at some point.
And removing a life support machine might not actually kill someone... I mean, usually it's the accident or illness that's put them onto the life support machine that's killed them, really.

Those cells are not actually developing into humans. Fetus cells are. They will be if you take them to a lab and start a cloning process, and if you kill the embryo's then, you have killed something. But if you cant see the diffrence between dormant skin cells and the first few cells of a human life, you are very stupid.
If you can't see the difference between the first few cells of a potential human being and an infant, then you are very stupid.

Actually, left to itself, its cells will die and it will begin to rot, as will a tumor or a clump of skin cells

It needs input from someone else to "grow into a human life."

And in its natural state it will be reciving that input.


If I burn lumber headed to a construction site, have I burned a house down?
If I give candy to a child, have I fed an adult?
If I help a 20-year old woman accross the street, have I helped a little old lady across the street?

You are committing an error here, by arguing that because it will be something, it already is that thing.

By burning lumber headed to a construction site you have burnt wood
Giving candy to a child you have fed a human
Helping a 20 year old woman across the street has helped a human

You are arguing somthing that changes with time. But it does not. It possess all the qualities of a life already. By arguing that by becoming dependet on something else to live, it no longer is alive is the same as arguing that a person on a life support machine is no longer alive.


The embryo/early fetus is incapable of choice.

Exactly, hence the woman has no right to force any choice on it


For what reason does an embryo/early fetus have a "right to life" that my
skin cells do not?

Because in its natural state (which is inside a womens body) it will develop into a human life. Skin cells in there natural state will remain skin cells and will not develop into anything else. Taking skin cells into a lab and cloning them is not in their natural state, so dont come that arguement

Killing something is not wrong to do. Murder is. You cannot prove to me or anyone else that is pro-choice that abortion is murder. It's a difference of opinion and one you'll have to live with.

But you cannot prove that its not. And ultimatly that kind of ambiguity cannot be tollerated. We need to be certian towards protecting something that may or may not be a life. If we are uncertian it is far better to play it safe than it is to let people kill people

A fetus naturally exists in a womens body in the first place. If it is left to itself in the womens body it will develop into a person. Removing it from thereto is as much killing as is removing a life support machine from someone.


If a fetus is 'left to itself' in a woman's body, the developing cells will still die and rot. The full development of a fetus involves active assistance from the female's body. Assistance that she should not be in any way obligated to suppy, any more than she would be obligated to donate her organs to people in need, or attempt CPR.

Yes, because no matter how wrong the person is to do it to her, its also wrong to kill the fetus. You are killing something, and thats wrong to do. Fact.
Also, if this was fact, then we wouldn't be arguing, would we? This would be well defined and cut and dry.

When I said "open access to abortion," I was referring to someone who thinks a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time in her pregnancy - even as she is giving birth. Do you believe that? If not, you are in favor of restricting abortions to a given time period.

My point was that everyone, even those of us who are pro-choice, place a limit on when and how abortions should be obtained. Roe v. Wade placed many limitations, although people like to think that access is open and free at every step of the way.

Ah! Okay. I missed your time-limit point, sorry. But this raises another issue. Where do we set the time limit? At the point when the fetus becomes viable (meaning able to exist outside of the mother)? That's where many people would place it. Because that point of viability keeps being pushed back with medical advances. It's just an interesting point to ponder.

You are arguing somthing that changes with time. But it does not. It possess all the qualities of a life already. By arguing that by becoming dependet on something else to live, it no longer is alive is the same as arguing that a person on a life support machine is no longer alive.

And that would mean Darth Vader is no longer alive.
Careful what you people say here.

Also, if this was fact, then we wouldn't be arguing, would we? This would be well defined and cut and dry.

Thank you!

And if killing "something" is wrong, no matter what, then...damn. I must be a terrible person because I kill bugs that intrude on my living space all the time.

But what if you are unable to afford a child? (Condoms are a lot less expesive than dipers)
and not having sex is safer and less expensive than condoms

and I hope you don't really think that diapers are the only expense that is baby related

No, a fetus does not naturally exist in a woman's body in the first place. I don't have a fetus in me right now, do I? I wasn't born with a fetus already in my womb, was I?
A fetus must get there at some point.

Dont play around with cemantics. If a fetus is created naturally then it will be in a womens body. Thus a fetus is naturally in a womens body. The natural place to find a fetus is inside a womans body. Do not try and play around with words to win your point. The natural creation of a fetus comes about by sex between a man and a women and the fetus will be found in the womans body. There. Have I spelt it out to you enough now?


And removing a life support machine might not actually kill someone... I mean, usually it's the accident or illness that's put them onto the life support machine that's killed them, really.

If you have someone on a life support machine who wont need that machine in 4 months time but needs it for all those 4 months to live and then you remove it, you have killed that person.


If you can't see the difference between the first few cells of a potential human being and an infant, then you are very stupid.

What exactly is the diffrence that makes it morraly right to kill one and not the other?

and not having sex is safer and less expensive than condoms

and I hope you don't really think that diapers are the only expense that is baby related
Really, I think all people should become homosexual until they are ready to have kids. Remember: Homosexuality is the only sure way to have sex and prevent pregnancies.

You are arguing somthing that changes with time. But it does not. It possess all the qualities of a life already. By arguing that by becoming dependet on something else to live, it no longer is alive is the same as arguing that a person on a life support machine is no longer alive.


An embryo does NOT posses all the qualities of a life already. And embryo is a parasite until it grows mature enough to survive on its own.

Now, in a normal pregnancy, this "parasiting" is not only tolerated, but willingfully encouraged by a woman(it essentially becomes symbiotic, instead of parasitic) . However, if a woman should not want to have an embryo and then a foetus growing inside her, then it remains just that, a paraiste.

Exactly, hence the woman has no right to force any choice on it

Neither has the foetus any right to force the woman to provide it with life support. The day machines or another woman or "gasp" YOU! can be used to provide said life support to a fetus in lieu of the mother, I'll be pushing for all pro-life proponents to have an embryon/foetus plugged to their body. Meanwhile, the only to let a woman refuse to be parasited by a foetus she doesn't want is, sadly, to let said foetus die.

Also, if this was fact, then we wouldn't be arguing, would we? This would be well defined and cut and dry.

The fact that your killing is cut and dry. You just refuse the fact that a womens right to choose is more important than the fetus's right to live.

If we are uncertian it is far better to play it safe than it is to let people kill people

I'm betting you are a man.


Were you woman, and could possibly be forced to "play it safe" against your will, I highly doubt you would hold the same principles.

It's very easy to push something unlpleasant upon others. It's quite another to have something unpleasant pushed on yourself.

Exactly, hence the woman has no right to force any choice on it


Er, you do realize that after a child has been born, the parents/guardians of said child then legally make all choices for that child until it reaches majority?

Now, given that a child actually has conciousness and free will and still doesn't have the option to make important decisions itself, why would a brainless lump of cells have any choice in any matter?

Really, I think all people should become homosexual until they are ready to have kids. Remember: Homosexuality is the only sure way to have sex and prevent pregnancies.
but still unsafe against disease.

sex isn't something people need, I don't understand why people get so mad when I suggest abstinence.

don't get me wrong, I understand liking sex, but you won't die if you don't get any. (or at least I don't think you will, you may want to, but you won't lol)

and not having sex is safer and less expensive than condoms


But we all know "not having sex" doesn't really happen. Even after working on it for 6,000 years.

I think it's failure constation time.

Dont play around with cemantics.
Semantics*

If a fetus is created naturally then it will be in a womens body. Thus a fetus is naturally in a womens body. The natural place to find a fetus is inside a womans body. Do not try and play around with words to win your point. The natural creation of a fetus comes about by sex between a man and a women and the fetus will be found in the womans body. There. Have I spelt it out to you enough now?
So it's ok to abort fetuses that are implanted using invitro?
And do we have to shove them back in if they are born premature? Or if they miscarry? Since that's the natural place for the fetus to be, afterall.

Say, your'e typing on a computer aren't you? How natural is that?! :shock:

If you have someone on a life support machine who wont need that machine in 4 months time but needs it for all those 4 months to live and then you remove it, you have killed that person.
So you're fine with people being hooked up to your body as a life support machine for a couple months at a time?

What exactly is the diffrence that makes it morraly right to kill one and not the other?
Well, even if you put aside the point that one is a clearly defined individual human being by any standard use of the definition and the other exists in a grey area... who said it was wrong to unplug someone's life support, exactly? That's an entirely different argument that you haven't really made (don't take this opportunity to make it though, you've already strayed too much from your original point)

My understanding is the brain is fully developed and functioning at 12 weeks.
This is what is described as a 12-week-old child.
Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers

At 7 weeks I would consider the fetus a child.
Facial features are visible, including a mouth and tongue. The eyes have a retina and lens. The major muscle system is developed, and the unborn child practices moving. The child has its own blood type, distinct from the mother's. The liver now instead of the yolk sac produces these blood cells.

At 5 weeks it gets touchy for me
5 weeks

Embryo is the size of a raisin. By day twenty-one, the embryo's tiny heart has begun beating. The neural tube enlarges into three parts, soon to become a very complex brain. The placenta begins functioning. The spine and spinal cord grows faster than the rest of the body at this stage and give the appearance of a tail. This disappears as the child continues to grow.

If you value life the idea of abortion has to be difficult.
But who is going to draw the line and where. Seems many people believe 9 months, yet children are born as young as 23 weeks and live.

I don't like the idea of abortions and I don't believe open abortion is the right answer for society. I believe it sends a very wrong message. Could we ever mature enough for it not to. I doubt it.

I would have to say for me to be comfortable after the first trimester then abortions should not be allowed, unless there are circumstances that could cause harm to the child or mother. Those circumstances could be psychological as well.

This one I am sure I will take some heat for but that is ok.
Children living at home should have parent’s approval to have an abortion if they are under 18. That child can't have any elective medical procedure with out parental approval and an abortion is a medical procedure last time I checked.

Personally I don't like kids from the time the start moving on their own till they are way in their teens they are not worth my effort. They are trouble, destructive, loud and smelly. But I love mom's and i am grateful to have had a loving mom. One thing is certain while I may express my opinion here no woman ever having to face that choice will hear my opinion unasked.
I will never stand in a picket line and shout at women who have to face a very tough choice. Talk about criminal misconduct.


My 2 cents on this very tough and emotional issue.


Regards,

JMayo

Really, I think all people should become homosexual until they are ready to have kids. Remember: Homosexuality is the only sure way to have sex and prevent pregnancies.

I agree, but then again, I'm slighlty biased on that issue :cool:

The fact that your killing is cut and dry. You just refuse the fact that a womens right to choose is more important than the fetus's right to live.
Again, do you eat meat? If all killing is so wrong then how come you will take antibiotics?

Furthermore, eliminating the potential of a fetus is a lot different from killing an individual organism.

Er, you do realize that after a child has been born, the parents/guardians of said child then legally make all choices for that child until it reaches majority?

Now, given that a child actually has conciousness and free will and still doesn't have the option to make important decisions itself, why would a brainless lump of cells have any choice in any matter?

The parents of a child do not have the right to decide that the child should die

But we all know "not having sex" doesn't really happen. Even after working on it for 6,000 years.

I think it's failure constation time.
it doesn't happen because people have been conditioned to beilieve that it is impossible

embarrassing truth I really did believe in 'blue balls' until I met my husband and he told me it was utter crap that guys made up to get some (although they didn't get any from me)

My understanding is the brain is fully developed and functioning at 12 weeks.
This is what is described as a 12-week-old child.
Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers
12 weeks?

Where the hell are you getting your info from? It's not developped until closer to 20 weeks.

I'm betting you are a man.

Were you woman, and could possibly be forced to "play it safe" against your will, I highly doubt you would hold the same principles.

It's very easy to push something unlpleasant upon others. It's quite another to have something unpleasant pushed on yourself.

I know plenty of women who support this and there are many more who support this that I dont know, so its hardly that kind of issue.

The parents of a child do not have the right to decide that the child should die
Really? So parents don't deceide what medication or medical treatment a child should receive?

Furthermore, a fetus is not a child.

Again, do you eat meat? If all killing is so wrong then how come you will take antibiotics?
do you fully support my right to kill my husband?
no?
do you eat meat? If all killing is so wrong then how come you will take antibiotics?

doesn't work does it?

if she believes that a fetus is human then killing a fetus is the same as killing a human.

What exactly is the diffrence that makes it morraly right to kill one and not the other?

Maybe it's because the baby can actually survive on it's own for extended periods of time without leeching off the body of another organism at or against it's will?

Maybe it's because babies have actually developed cognitive functions?

I don't really know. Morals are tricky. However, there are laws against killing humans after they have been born. The same cannot be said for embryos and most fetuses.

12 weeks?

Where the hell are you getting your info from? It's not developped until closer to 20 weeks.
really? I have a cousin that was born at 15 weeks, she has all her stuff (and did at birth too) she was just really really little and really weak.

Really? So parents don't deceide what medication or medical treatment a child should receive?

If they know that a child is ill and yet withhold medication from it. Medication that they were able to get and knew how to get etc then they are murdering the child.


Furthermore, a fetus is not a child.

I was responding to a post where someone had said that the legal guardien of a child has all its decisions made for it up to a certian age.

it doesn't happen because people have been conditioned to beilieve that it is impossible

embarrassing truth I really did believe in 'blue balls' until I met my husband and he told me it was utter crap that guys made up to get some (although they didn't get any from me)

Look at any statistics about teenage pregnancy in areas that promote abstinence. Then look at statistics in areas that give sexual educations and teach kids to use a condom.

You'll see there are always less teenage pregnancies in ares with sex ed. Why? Because teaching sex ed isn't equal to encouraging teenagers to have sex. It's only teaching them what to do should they happen to have intercourse.

Even a person who preaches abstinance should STILL offer his/her children the chance to learn how to avoid pregnancy/diseases. Because to rely only on abstinence is, quite frankly, wishful thinking. Like I said, abstinence has been going on for 6 thousand years, and never worked right.

I think teaching kids to wait until they are ready to have sex, and informing them about what to do to have safe sex when they are ready is the only way to go.

if she believes that a fetus is human then killing a fetus is the same as killing a human.
If he* you mean...


And a fetus is not a human being yet. It is a potential one.

I know plenty of women who support this and there are many more who support this that I dont know, so its hardly that kind of issue.

Well, I look forward to seeing those women offer their bodies to support unborn foetuses when the technology permits it.

YOU would do it, wouldn't you? Of course you would. :rolleyes:

If he* you mean...


And a fetus is not a human being yet. It is a potential one.

The only reason I come out pro-choice is because I'm male. It should be solely up to women as to whether or not they individually need an abortion.

Not up to me.

If they know that a child is ill and yet withhold medication from it. Medication that they were able to get and knew how to get etc then they are murdering the child.
Tell that to the people whose religions go against giving them medication.

I was responding to a post where someone had said that the legal guardien of a child has all its decisions made for it up to a certian age.
Yep. In a sense, dictating even whether the child lives or dies, as in the aforementioned example.

Not the right to kill
Depends, in a free society, with some exceptions adults do have the right to kill. In a free society the premise is that all competent adults are free to do as they like provided they do not act illegally. Thus competent adults in such a society have the right to kill so long the act of killing is not illegal. I myself have killed many times, more than I care to count, no one is arresting me for it or even suggesting that I acted wrongly.

It may not be my business or anyone elses, but it is the business of the featus. Since it cannot defend itself it becomes our business to defend.
You are imagining the a fetus has any business. Unless you can prove that to be the case, you are not defending the business of something unable to defend it's own business, you are simply trying to force others to abide by your beliefs.

Yes, because no matter how wrong the person is to do it to her, its also wrong to kill the fetus. You are killing something, and thats wrong to do. Fact.
Says you. You are entitled to think that it is wrong to kill something and to not kill anything as a result. You are welcome to advise others accordingly. You are not welcome to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs. Many people dont think killing is wrong. In fact I suggest most people dont think killing is wrong. Unless you can prove it is (rather than simply stating so) whyever should the law coerce people into abiding by your belief?

Look at any statistics about teenage pregnancy in areas that promote abstinence. Then look at statistics in areas that give sexual educations and teach kids to use a condom.

You'll see there are always less teenage pregnancies in ares with sex ed. Why? Because teaching sex ed isn't equal to encouraging teenagers to have sex. It's only teaching them what to do should they happen to have intercourse.

Even a person who preaches abstinance should STILL offer his/her children the chance to learn how to avoid pregnancy/diseases. Because to rely only on abstinence is, quite frankly, wishful thinking. Like I said, abstinence has been going on for 6 thousand years, and never worked right.

I think teaching kids to wait until they are ready to have sex, and informing them about what to do to have safe sex when they are ready is the only way to go.

I am not for absitnence only education, I am fully supportive of full sexual education, I don't know where you got the idea I wasn't.
all I am saying is I am tired of people having sex and then whining about getting pregnant I mean you had to know that was a possibility right? If not we need a whole lot more sex education.

Maybe it's because the baby can actually survive on it's own for extended periods of time without leeching off the body of another organism at or against it's will?

Unless the mother is somehow in danger of her life by this then it is fine. If she is in danger of her life then it becomes a medical operation. If she is inconvienced as a result it should be society around her that compensates for her, not her compensating by killing the child


Maybe it's because babies have actually developed cognitive functions?

Does that mean brain damgaed people are dead?

The only reason I come out pro-choice is because I'm male. It should be solely up to women as to whether or not they individually need an abortion.

Not up to me.

A viewpoint a share completely.

Avalon has yet to reveal to us whether s/he is a man or a woman.

Tell that to the people whose religions go against giving them medication.


Jehovah's witnesses, anyone?

If he* you mean...


And a fetus is not a human being yet. It is a potential one.
there is a lot of debate about that, you take one side and he takes the other, neither of you can scientifically prove your side is more right than the other so why argue?

Does that mean brain damgaed people are dead?
I think they mean that brain dead people are dead.

The parents of a child do not have the right to decide that the child should die

Well, in a way they do. However, society has punishments in place to discourage such behaviour.

Also, even beyond outright murder of a child, parent's can decide whether or not their child dies, because people are allowed to refuse their child medical attention if they want to. Some people shun all modern medical technology, or decide they can't afford all the procedures necessary to keep an ill child alive. In these situations the parents are basically deciding to let their children die, though not actually killing them.

You are imagining the a fetus has any business. Unless you can prove that to be the case, you are not defending the business of something unable to defend it's own business, you are simply trying to force others to abide by your beliefs.

The fetus has the business of living, which it has a right to do.


Says you. You are entitled to think that it is wrong to kill something and to not kill anything as a result. You are welcome to advise others accordingly. You are not welcome to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs. Many people dont think killing is wrong. In fact I suggest most people dont think killing is wrong. Unless you can prove it is (rather than simply stating so) whyever should the law coerce people into abiding by your belief?

Because ultimately the action you are promoting enables the choice of only one of the parties involved here. The choice of the woman. And that choice is to be inconvienced or not. If it is a choice for her to live or not then it becomes a medical operation and thus not a moral issue. However the choice for the fetus is the possibility of its life or not. Which is by far more important. If the fetus threatens the life of the mother then it is killing one life to save another, which is morrally justifiable (kill or be killed).

Olara']This is an issue with which I have struggled for a couple of years, now. The closest I've been able to get is that a zygote fully contains a separate human life, ie, that zygote is genetically different from any other human being and everything the zygote needs to become a fully developed human being is contained within itself. I'd appreciate any thoughts from anyone.

To me it's not human until it has a human mind. Zygote is a clump of cells that could turn into anything depending on what the orginal DNA was from.

If someone took a picture of a human Zygote and an Animal Zygote could you really tell the difference? Nope. A clump of Cells look like a clump of cells.

And abstinance= Fail

I am not for absitnence only education, I am fully supportive of full sexual education, I don't know where you got the idea I wasn't.
all I am saying is I am tired of people having sex and then whining about getting pregnant I mean you had to know that was a possibility right? If not we need a whole lot more sex education.

I'm sorry, most of those who support abstinence (that I've met) are also against sexual education. As for having sex and whining about pregnance, it is safe to say that if they used both a condom and contraceptive pills, and still got a pregnancy, there's something fishy going on with the holy spirit around there. Otherwise, well, they should be condemned for their carelessness about HOW they went around having sex, not just because they were having sex.

I'm sorry, most of those who support abstinence (that I've met) are also against sexual education. As for having sex and whining about pregnance, it is safe to say that if they used both a condom and contraceptive pills, and still got a pregnancy, there's something fishy going on with the holy spirit around there. Otherwise, well, they should be condemned for their carelessness about HOW they went around having sex, not just because they were having sex.
count holy spirit fishy ness in my situation then because I got a two year old running around with rythm method, birth contol pills and a condom that didn't break (noticably anyway) she is def my husbands though, same blood type, looks just like him.

Unless the mother is somehow in danger of her life by this then it is fine. If she is in danger of her life then it becomes a medical operation. If she is inconvienced as a result it should be society around her that compensates for her, not her compensating by killing the child

This is me not understanding AT ALL how this relates to what I said.

Does that mean brain damgaed people are dead?

Er... no. Not anymore than a fetus is dead before it developes brain functions. However, if even a person's lower brain functions have stopped working, I'd consider them pretty much dead. Most forms of brain damage don't involve the brain to complete stop working, to the point that it might as well not exist.

The choice of the woman. And that choice is to be inconvienced or not.

Inconvenienced? :eek:

WHAT TEH FUCK!!!!?!?!?!


You truly are a man, and a very insensitive one, if you believe even for a split second that having a PARASITIC LIFE GROWING IN YOUR ABDOMEN FOR 9 FREAKING MONTHS is a mere "inconvenience".

I suggest you make a martyr of yourself and save all unborn foetuses of the world by giving up your body for their well-being. See if you like it. :rolleyes:

Inconvenienced? :eek:

WHAT TEH FUCK!!!!?!?!?!


You truly are a man, and a very insensitive one, if you believe even for a split second that having a PARASITIC LIFE GROWING IN YOUR ABDOMEN FOR 9 FREAKING MONTHS is a mere "inconvenience".

I suggest you make a martyr of yourself and save all unborn foetuses of the world by giving up your body for their well-being. See if you like it. :rolleyes:

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.

count holy spirit fishy ness in my situation then because I got a two year old running around with rythm method, birth contol pills and a condom that didn't break (noticably anyway) she is def my husbands though, same blood type, looks just like him.

My point, aside from the tongue-in-cheek reference to the holy spirit, was that you could not be blamed for your pregnancy if you took all possible precautions. You are a statistical anomaly, unfortunately for you( or fortunately if the little one is actually something good that happened for you).

Another argument on my pro-choice stance that I hadn't mentionned yet is that sometimes, pro-life activists try to force the young woman to have the baby, yet care little about what the father does. Let's face it, a lot of teenagers see their boyfriend disappear when the news of a pregnancy arises. It strikes me, again, as dumping the problem on the shoulders of women.

If your little toddler is your husband's, then you're lucky because he chose to stick around and take his responsibilities. Not all men are so honorable.

Skaladora, it's hard having to deal with close minded bible t humpers isn't it.

I wonder if they defend Ovarian Cancer also? I mean it's sometimes and Egg cell that started dividing on it's own, does that make it a fetus also?

but still unsafe against disease.

sex isn't something people need, I don't understand why people get so mad when I suggest abstinence.

don't get me wrong, I understand liking sex, but you won't die if you don't get any. (or at least I don't think you will, you may want to, but you won't lol)
As long as that is all it is: a suggestion.
My girlfriend and I have sex and she is on the pill. We plan to marry in the future and have children some time after that. If she were to get pregnant before now and then, she would have an abortion. She asked for my input and I fully support her. I plan on opening a small business and she wishes to finish school. Having a baby now would seriously impair our ability to raise a child responsibily. I also have to say that sex has brought us closer together than we ever would have been if we had waited. Given the emotional ties that are now between, I feel it is a bit more than merely liking the acts of sex. Though we both liked those acts before we met each other.
We both feel that we are taking full responsibility for our lives and for the lives of our future children.
Abstinence is fine if that is your wish and I am sure you feel strongly about it. If you are not ready to have children and if abortion is something you would never consider, than it is the best option for you. It's just not the best for me.

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.

It sure is more than a "severe inconvenience". It's a lifetime committment. If you're not ready to be a parent and you are forced to be one, that's a first class ticket for child abuse.

And there are other circumstances - when the life of the mother is at stake or when it's a case of rape. Are you saying that all women should be forced to carry their babies to term even if they were raped? Or even if a continued pregnancy would absolutely kill them? Are you saying that's ok?

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.
You operate under a different set of morals.

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.

"Very severe inconvenience"?

You still haven't assured me you would offer your body to save a fetus' life if you were given the choice. Would YOU accept to be "severely inconvenienced" to save an embryo? If you don't tell me you would, then I have no choice but to call you an hypocrite.

You truly are a man, and a very insensitive one, if you believe even for a split second that having a PARASITIC LIFE GROWING IN YOUR ABDOMEN FOR 9 FREAKING MONTHS is a mere "inconvenience".

I suggest you make a martyr of yourself and save all unborn foetuses of the world by giving up your body for their well-being. See if you like it. :rolleyes:
I've been pregant twice and while it is more than an inconvenience it isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and yes I had difficult pregancies.

My understanding is the brain is fully developed and functioning at 12 weeks.
This is what is described as a 12-week-old child.
Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers

At 7 weeks I would consider the fetus a child.
Facial features are visible, including a mouth and tongue. The eyes have a retina and lens. The major muscle system is developed, and the unborn child practices moving. The child has its own blood type, distinct from the mother's. The liver now instead of the yolk sac produces these blood cells.

At 5 weeks it gets touchy for me
5 weeks

Embryo is the size of a raisin. By day twenty-one, the embryo's tiny heart has begun beating. The neural tube enlarges into three parts, soon to become a very complex brain. The placenta begins functioning. The spine and spinal cord grows faster than the rest of the body at this stage and give the appearance of a tail. This disappears as the child continues to grow.

If you value life the idea of abortion has to be difficult.
But who is going to draw the line and where. Seems many people believe 9 months, yet children are born as young as 23 weeks and live.

I don't like the idea of abortions and I don't believe open abortion is the right answer for society. I believe it sends a very wrong message. Could we ever mature enough for it not to. I doubt it.

I would have to say for me to be comfortable after the first trimester then abortions should not be allowed, unless there are circumstances that could cause harm to the child or mother. Those circumstances could be psychological as well.

This one I am sure I will take some heat for but that is ok.
Children living at home should have parent’s approval to have an abortion if they are under 18. That child can't have any elective medical procedure with out parental approval and an abortion is a medical procedure last time I checked.

Personally I don't like kids from the time the start moving on their own till they are way in their teens they are not worth my effort. They are trouble, destructive, loud and smelly. But I love mom's and i am grateful to have had a loving mom. One thing is certain while I may express my opinion here no woman ever having to face that choice will hear my opinion unasked.
I will never stand in a picket line and shout at women who have to face a very tough choice. Talk about criminal misconduct.


My 2 cents on this very tough and emotional issue.


Regards,

JMayo

Your 2 cents isn't worth 2 cents.

I'd love to see you document that the human brain is fully functioning at 12 weeks. That is simply not true.

Here (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm) is an accurate, neutral source re fetal development.

Moreover, you should be happy with Roe v. Wade and current abortion practices in the United States.

Nearly 59% of all abortions are performed at less than 8 weeks. 88% are preformed at less than 12 weeks. As the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)report:

In 2001, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (42 reporting areas), 59% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <13 weeks (Table 6). Overall (40 reporting areas), 25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.

Most of you here are arguing about abortions at a stage of fetal development of 24 weeks or more. Less than 0.04-0.08% of abortions occur at that stage. In almost every state in the US, abortions are illegal at that stage except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

12 weeks?

Where the hell are you getting your info from? It's not developped until closer to 20 weeks.

From a pamphlet put out by Sutter Health on the process.
And since you ask in just looking on the net I find this in many places.
By this stage, a fetus has developed most of his/her organs and tissues
and from a book here on my desk called The Fetal and Young Child Nervous System: The Story of the Development and Maldevelopment of the Brain
Adel K. Afifi, MD, MS
Professor
Departments of Pediatrics, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Neurology

Ronald A. Bergman, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology

The University of Iowa

Peer Review Status: Internally Peer Reviewed
First Published: January 1999
Last Revised: August 2002


Regards,

JMayo

The fetus has the business of living, which it has a right to do.
A tree has the business of living. In many cases a fetus does not have a right live. We know this because in many cases aborting a fetus is permittable and clearly if the fetus had a right to live, aborting it would not be permittable.

Because ultimately the action you are promoting enables the choice of only one of the parties involved here. The choice of the woman.
I'm not promoting action. It would be more accurate to suggest I am promoting inaction. In terms of choice there is only one party involved.

And that choice is to be inconvienced or not.
That may be the case in some instances, I doubt very much you could prove it is the case in all instances.

If it is a choice for her to live or not then it becomes a medical operation and thus not a moral issue.
It is a medical operation in either case. It is a moral issue in either case.

However the choice for the fetus is the possibility of its life or not.
For the fetus choice is not an issue.

Which is by far more important.
No it is not necessarily more important. It is not necessarily important at all.

If the fetus threatens the life of the mother then it is killing one life to save another, which is morrally justifiable (kill or be killed).
Whether it is morally justifiable or not depends on which moral system is applied.

Skaladora, it's hard having to deal with close minded bible thumpers isn't it.

I don't know about the Bible Thumping, but I do feel like Avalon fails to grasp the severity of what he would actually force upon an unwilling woman. However, I believe I managed to hold my own with logical and reasoned arguments in this debate, so far, and that's all I aimed to accomplish.

My point, aside from the tongue-in-cheek reference to the holy spirit, was that you could not be blamed for your pregnancy if you took all possible precautions. You are a statistical anomaly, unfortunately for you( or fortunately if the little one is actually something good that happened for you).

Another argument on my pro-choice stance that I hadn't mentionned yet is that sometimes, pro-life activists try to force the young woman to have the baby, yet care little about what the father does. Let's face it, a lot of teenagers see their boyfriend disappear when the news of a pregnancy arises. It strikes me, again, as dumping the problem on the shoulders of women.

If your little toddler is your husband's, then you're lucky because he chose to stick around and take his responsibilities. Not all men are so honorable.
I am very lucky that he stuck around (he was kinda stuck already since we were already married and had another kid before) I was fully responsible though, having sex comes with the chance of having a kid.

btw I used to work at a crisis preg center and I did actually go with a girl who decided on abortion because she didn't deserve to be alone even though I didn't agree with what she was doing.

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.

Not really related to this, but I have to wonder: Does your concession of risk to the mother's life apply only to physical problems, or would you accept psychological difficulties grounds for abortion, too?

"Very severe inconvenience"?

You still haven't assured me you would offer your body to save a fetus' life if you were given the choice. Would YOU accept to be "severely inconvenienced" to save an embryo? If you don't tell me you would, then I have no choice but to call you an hypocrite.

I would. If nessecary I would be severley inconvienced for 9 months to save a life. I'm not going to deny someone life for the sake of 9 months of inconvience.

A very severe inconveinece perhaps, but not anywhere near morally justifiying killing it.

1. Don't be an ass. Pregnancy poses significant risks and costs to life, health, economy, and socially.

2. What is the moral justification for forcing someone to give up control over their own body for 9 months?

3. What is the moral argument against killing a mere clump of cells?

Your 2 cents isn't worth 2 cents.


Most of you here are arguing about abortions at a stage of fetal development of 24 weeks or more. Less than 0.04-0.08% of abortions occur at that stage. In almost every state in the US, abortions are illegal at that stage except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

I don't believe I am arguing anything ma'am. But you are. I believe my post made it clear it was an opinion. While I appreciate any correct or education you can provide. I doubt it will change my mind much. When looking at a 12-week-old fetus I see a child. As I said clearly it is not something I would ever say to a woman unasked out of here.

Regards,

JMayo

Skaladora, it's hard having to deal with close minded bible t humpers isn't it.

I am closed minded for refusing to change my beliefs. Does that mean pro-choicers who do not change their beliefs are equally closed-minded. I sense a double standard here


I wonder if they defend Ovarian Cancer also? I mean it's sometimes and Egg cell that started dividing on it's own, does that make it a fetus also?

Ovairian cancer would be where the fetus threatens a mothers life. Kill or be killed. A morally defendable position for killing

I've been pregant twice and while it is more than an inconvenience it isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and yes I had difficult pregancies.

I'll assume you wanted both your children, though, even if they were unexpected. Is the process of pregnancy something you could imagine going through if you adamantly didn't want the resulting child?

I don't know much about it, but I'd imagine that the knowledge of ending up with a child you could love would help a woman through pregnancy in a way a person involved in a unwanted pregnancy wouldn't have.

I've been pregant twice and while it is more than an inconvenience it isn't as bad as people make it out to be, and yes I had difficult pregancies.

But were those pregnancies and the children they brought were truly unwanted? You sound like you love your child, and like even though you weren't necessarily planning to have them, you at least accepted them.

That is all well and good if your morality makes you accept an unplanned pregnancy with some phlegm. But are you ready to force that choice upon EVERY pregnant woman and teenager in the world?

Certainly presenting a woman with alternatives to abortion (like giving the child to adoption after its birth) are to be encouraged. But in the even where the woman really and definitely DOES NOT DESIRE a pregnancy or a child, then we have no choice but to accept the decision she makes about not relinquising her rights on her own body for the good of something/someone else.

Think of it this way: does anyone has the right to DEMAND that you give up the rights to your body for it's survival? Certainly not. Perhaps a compassionate person would accept to do so, but that would have to remain his/her choice, in completely free will and without coercion.

1. Don't be an ass. Pregnancy poses significant risks and costs to life, health, economy, and socially.

And aborition presents a certian danger to the life of the fetus. If a mothers life is at risk I agree then aborition is justified, but only then.


2. What is the moral justification for forcing someone to give up control over their own body for 9 months?

Because if it was consentual sex then the woman should have been prepared for that posibility in the first place. There is no preventive contreception that is 100% effective therefore a woman who enters into conseentual sex must be perpared for the possibity of a pregnancy. (note here - the morning after pill is not preventative contreception on the grounds that it is used after sex and not before). Also the inconvience of the woman for 9 months (I should explain at this point that I use the word inconvience for lack of a better one to explain it with at this moment) is not justification enough for killing someone. If the sex was non-consentual IE rape then the woman should give the child up for adoption.


3. What is the moral argument against killing a mere clump of cells?

That clump of cells will (if left to its natural state, which is in the womens body) develop into a human life. To remove it from the woman is as much killing as removing a life support machine from someone who in a few months wont need the machiene any more but needs it now.

I am closed minded for refusing to change my beliefs. Does that mean pro-choicers who do not change their beliefs are equally closed-minded. I sense a double standard here

Pro-choice laws encompasses the ability for anyone to be as pro-life as they want to be.
Your beliefs are threatening. Our beliefs do not threaten your lifestyle.

I would. If nessecary I would be severley inconvienced for 9 months to save a life. I'm not going to deny someone life for the sake of 9 months of inconvience.
You are pretty disgusting.

Pro-choice laws encompasses the ability for anyone to be as pro-life as they want to be.
Your beliefs are threatening. Our beliefs do not threaten your lifestyle.

They threaten the life of the fetus. I think thats more important than your lifestyle

You are pretty disgusting.

Why, because I am happy to alter my life for 9 months to save someones life? If its the use of the word inconvience you object to I apologise.

I would. If nessecary I would be severley inconvienced for 9 months to save a life. I'm not going to deny someone life for the sake of 9 months of inconvience.

And on what grounds would you base yourself to force everyone to commit to the same compassionate act you would be performing?

If you were in dire need of a blood transfusion, and I had the right bloodtype, you could certainly do all in your power to convince me to give blood for you. If I were a compassionnate person(and I assure you I am) I would consent and sacrifice a little of my blood to save you.

But under no circumstances would I EVER support a law forcing me, or any other, to give blood just to save your life. Because ultimately, my body is my body, and I should the final judge of what I do with it.

I'm sure you wouldn't support a law forcing someone to give up his kidney for transplant even to save a life. You could use persuasion, but you certainly couldn't justify forced kidney ablation to save someone.

Forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy she doesn't desire is very much the same as the law I just described.

They threaten the life of the fetus. I think thats more important than your lifestyle
We disagree on when life starts.

And aborition presents a certian danger to the life of the fetus. If a mothers life is at risk I agree then aborition is justified, but only then.

Again, we aren't talking about fetus in 90% of abortions.

Again, a fetus isn't a person. The woman is.

You place a higher moral value on a potentiality than on an existing person. That is simply backwards.

Because if it was consentual sex then the woman should have been prepared for that posibility in the first place. There is no preventive contreception that is 100% effective therefore a woman who enters into conseentual sex must be perpared for the possibity of a pregnancy. (note here - the morning after pill is not preventative contreception on the grounds that it is used after sex and not before).

1. Ah, but you are also against abortion in cases of rape, so the "consent" argument doesn't apply.

2. A woman no more consents to carry a baby to birth by having sex than you consent to having your brains smashed into a dashboard by getting into a car.

That clump of cells will (if left to its natural state, which is in the womens body) develop into a human life. To remove it from the woman is as much killing as removing a life support machine from someone who in a few months wont need the machiene any more but needs it now.

The clump of cells will not develop into a human life a high percentage of the time.

But you begged the question, why is it not morally permissible to take human life in some cases?

Certainly presenting a woman with alternatives to abortion (like giving the child to adoption after its birth) are to be encouraged. But in the even where the woman really and definitely DOES NOT DESIRE a pregnancy or a child, then we have no choice but to accept the decision she makes about not relinquising her rights on her own body for the good of something/someone else.


So the womens desire not to be pregnant is more important than the child's right to life?


Think of it this way: does anyone has the right to DEMAND that you give up the rights to your body for it's survival? Certainly not. Perhaps a compassionate person would accept to do so, but that would have to remain his/her choice, in completely free will and without coercion.

You forget, by having sex a woman accepts the posibility of pregnancy. The fetus does not demand that she give her body to save it. Because there is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contrcieption (see an earlier post about the morning after pill) then when a woman has sex she must be prepared for the possibility of a child. If it is rape then thats diffrent, but again the womens right to control of her body does not outweigh the child's right to life. Ultimatley the only time the childs right to life can be taken away is when it threatens the right to life of the mother.

I don't believe I am arguing anything ma'am. But you are. I believe my post made it clear it was an opinion. While I appreciate any correct or education you can provide. I doubt it will change my mind much. When looking at a 12-week-old fetus I see a child. As I said clearly it is not something I would ever say to a woman unasked out of here.

Regards,

JMayo

It happens to be "sir."

I'm glad you are willing to be educated. But you stated things as if they were facts when they are not.

You can "see" whatever you want when looking at a 12-week old fetus, but that does not mean that, as a matter of science, it has a functioning brain.

Moreoever, as I documented 90% of abortions are performed before that 12-week stage.

And aborition presents a certian danger to the life of the fetus. If a mothers life is at risk I agree then aborition is justified, but only then.
Which leaves you without a leg to stand on since every pregnancy presents a threat to the life of the pregnant person.

Because if it was consentual sex then the woman should have been prepared for that posibility in the first place.
What a load of nonsense. Either the fetus should not be killed due to it's own inherent qualities, or it is a non-issue. Whether or not the pregnant woman was 'a naughty girl' or not isnt in the least bit relevent. Perhaps you believe it is your place to punish them at the cost of whatever misery doing so will cause to the unwanted children you wish to force the birth of for the purposes of punishing 'naughty girls'. I dont believe however that it is your place to even judge much less punish the 'naughty girls' of this world, least of all by way of some innocent third party that you want to bring into the punishment.

There is no preventive contreception that is 100% effective therefore a woman who enters into conseentual sex must be perpared for the possibity of a pregnancy.
Whether or not she is prepared, should she find herself pregnant, a women (or girl as the case may be) will have to deal with the actuality of being pregnant. She will, prepared or not, have to deal with consequences, and that might include having to undergo an abortion.

That clump of cells will (if left to its natural state, which is in the womens body) develop into a human life. To remove it from the woman is as much killing as removing a life support machine from someone who in a few months wont need the machiene any more but needs it now.
That clump of cells will not necessarily develop into a person. Any number of things could prevent that from happening, in fact any number of things could fail to materialise to ensure that it does happen.

As for 'natural states', please unless you wish to argue about supernatural intervention, it's all natural.

Avalon II, please address this question: Does your concession of risk to the mother's life apply only to physical problems, or would you accept psychological difficulties grounds for abortion, too?

So the womens desire not to be pregnant is more important than the child's right to life?



You forget, by having sex a woman accepts the posibility of pregnancy. The fetus does not demand that she give her body to save it. Because there is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contrcieption (see an earlier post about the morning after pill) then when a woman has sex she must be prepared for the possibility of a child. If it is rape then thats diffrent, but again the womens right to control of her body does not outweigh the child's right to life. Ultimatley the only time the childs right to life can be taken away is when it threatens the right to life of the mother.

Why?

1. Normally, I cannot be forced to give up control of my body in order to save the life of another person. I can't be forced to donate blood or organs.

2. Why does the "child" have a right to life at all? It isn't a person and has none of the characteristics of personhood. It has less of claim to a right to life than a chimp, a dolphin, or a pig.

3. Assuming the "child" has a right to life, why does it take precedence? You have yet to explain why the rights of the mother are forfeit -- particularly in the case of rape.

So the womens desire not to be pregnant is more important than the child's right to life?

Please, no misquoting me. I thought I was being quite clear.

The woman has the right not to be used as a life-support system against her will. Unfortunately, we have no way to save the foetus when she does so. We can try to convince her to save the child's life because it would be the right thing to do, but under no circumstances can we FORCE her to give up 9 months of her for the benefit of another living thing.

You forget, by having sex a woman accepts the posibility of pregnancy.


By having sex a woman accepts the possibility of having sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

Otherwise, all MALE teenagers having sex would accept the possibility of being a father. Needless to say it is not the case.


The fetus does not demand that she give her body to save it.

No, but you are.


If it is rape then thats diffrent, but again the womens right to control of her body does not outweigh the child's right to life.
The woman's right to control her body is absolute. She isn't killing the foetus per se: she is simply refusing it the benefit of her body to continue living. Just as I could refuse giving my blood to save someone. Just like you could refuse to give your kidney to save a tranger.

Again, we aren't talking about fetus in 90% of abortions.

Unless you can tell which fetus will live and which wont for certian then its wrong.


Again, a fetus isn't a person. The woman is.

But it will be a person if left to develop in its natural place (IE inside the woman). If it dies naturally, thats not our fault, but if we kill it, it is.


You place a higher moral value on a potentiality than on an existing person. That is simply backwards

The mothers right to life is not threatened here. If it is then abortion is justified (its kill or be killed). I am not placing a higher value on the babies life here. What is of higher value is what is deprived of the baby. Aborition deprives the baby of life. Pregancy denies the woman of normal life for 9 months.


1. Ah, but you are also against abortion in cases of rape, so the "consent" argument doesn't apply.

See the edited post


2. A woman no more consents to carry a baby to birth by having sex than you consent to having your brains smashed into a dashboard by getting into a car.

Of course she does. Anyone with a U in Science GCSE can tell you that the biological purpose of the act of sex is to create a life. The purpose of a car is to take you to a destination. While pleasure is a byproduct of sex, thats ultimately not the reason for it. The pleasure is only there as a function of getting people to have sex to create lives. You may have sex because you want the fun of it etc, but thats not its primary function


The clump of cells will not develop into a human life a high percentage of the time.

People will not live to 90 a high percentage of the time. Does that mean killing everyone who reachs 89 is justifyable


But you begged the question, why is it not morally permissible to take human life in some cases?

I am going to pretend you didnt ask that. You are asking me here why I think its morally wrong to kill?

Because if it was consentual sex then the woman should have been prepared for that posibility in the first place. There is no preventive contreception that is 100% effective therefore a woman who enters into conseentual sex must be perpared for the possibity of a pregnancy. (note here - the morning after pill is not preventative contreception on the grounds that it is used after sex and not before). Also the inconvience of the woman for 9 months (I should explain at this point that I use the word inconvience for lack of a better one to explain it with at this moment) is not justification enough for killing someone. If the sex was non-consentual IE rape then the woman should give the child up for adoption

This implies that, not only should rape victims be forced through pregnancy to birth, but also that non-rape victims should be forced to care for the child they did not want.

Scary.

I have actually been to many funerals for children who were miscarried. :( It is really sad when you lose a child, I doubt that the parents pain was any less than if they had "a real baby" as many cruel people say.

I'm sorry, I don't like abortion, but I would suggest my wife seek medical attention if she wanted to have a funeral for a miscarriage. Have you ever looked at the statistics surrounding natural abortion? Keep in mind, we're not talking about still births. In order to compare with abortions one would have to only be talking about spontaneous abortions that occur when a woman is barely showing or earlier.

Why?

1. Normally, I cannot be forced to give up control of my body in order to save the life of another person. I can't be forced to donate blood or organs.


Which is a point I have tried to make clear enough for all to see. Making all abortions criminal amounts to drawing up a law making it possible to force a person to relinquish blood or organs for the benefit of another living being.

And I believe that is a position that is clearly undefendable.

I am going to pretend you didnt ask that. You are asking me here why I think its morally wrong to kill?

Yep.

Answer the question.

Yes but sex might be required for a happy, healthy marriage FOR SOME PEOPLE. The physical part of my relatoinship IS very important (deffinately not THE most important thing, but still important). I would rather take the 1% chance than see a healthy marriage go to pot.

Yes, Paul actually suggested that avoiding sex is bad for a marital relationship. The Bible actually says married couples should not abstain.

Of course she does. Anyone with a U in Science GCSE can tell you that the biological purpose of the act of sex is to create a life. The purpose of a car is to take you to a destination. While pleasure is a byproduct of sex, thats ultimately not the reason for it. The pleasure is only there as a function of getting people to have sex to create lives. You may have sex because you want the fun of it etc, but thats not its primary function

This is a fallacy. Sex has many other uses besides procreation. Look at the Bonobo.
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
The primary function of sexual conduct is not one answer. Procreation is a answer but not the only one.

So the womens desire not to be pregnant is more important than the child's right to life?
Depends on what such a right is based on....however I assume we are discussing the US and similar countries where there is no such right in the cases where abortions are performed.

You forget, by having sex a woman accepts the posibility of pregnancy.
And you would know what particular women accept how exactly?

The fetus does not demand that she give her body to save it.
That's right, the fetus is not capable of demanding anything.

Because there is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contrcieption (see an earlier post about the morning after pill) then when a woman has sex she must be prepared for the possibility of a child.
No, she need not be prepared for anything. However should she find herself pregnant, then she will have to incur some consequent/s. I do not see any reason why as a matter of law, the possible consequences should not include undergoing an abortion.

If it is rape then thats diffrent,
...because if it's rape then she's not necessarily a 'naughty girl'?!

but again the womens right to control of her body does not outweigh the child's right to life.
If it is a child, there is no issue, a child need not interfere with another person's bodily integrity. Or do you mean fetus? If so, it should be clear that a fetus does not necessarily have any such right.

Ultimatley the only time the childs right to life can be taken away is when it threatens the right to life of the mother.
No one is suggesting infanticide or child-murder be allowed (so far as I can tell). We are discussing abortion.

Please, no misquoting me. I thought I was being quite clear.

The woman has the right not to be used as a life-support system against her will. Unfortunately, we have no way to save the foetus when she does so. We can try to convince her to save the child's life because it would be the right thing to do, but under no circumstances can we FORCE her to give up 9 months of her for the benefit of another living thing.

The woman entered into a situation where she knew it was possible for her to be used as a life support machine for a fetus. By having sex, she accepts that she is in the act that is biologically supposed to create a life.


By having sex a woman accepts the possibility of having sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thats stupid. You cannot seperate sex and pregancy. They are cause and consequence. By shooting someone you must accept the possibiluty that they will die. Sex is bilogically ment to create a life. We may put diffrent meanings on it such as pleasue etc but ultimatley the pleasue only exists to encourage humans to create life.


Otherwise, all MALE teenagers having sex would accept the possibility of being a father. Needless to say it is not the case.

No, they should accpet that responablity. Obviously they dont. But that doesnt mean that its any less wrong for them not to.


No, but you are.


I am demanding they dont kill. Thats a reasonable demand.


The woman's right to control her body is absolute. She isn't killing the foetus per se: she is simply refusing it the benefit of her body to continue living. Just as I could refuse giving my blood to save someone. Just like you could refuse to give your kidney to save a tranger.

If someone needed your kidney for transplant and could not live on anyone elses and you refused then you are in effect killing them. If someone is on a life support machine and will no longer nead it in 9 months time but needs it during all those 9 months and you turn it off you are killing them. A woman aborting a child is killing it. No question

Why, because I am happy to alter my life for 9 months to save someones life? If its the use of the word inconvience you object to I apologise.
9 months +20 years (give or take) and around -1,000,000$

Ahem, pro-choicers, how is whatever line you draw in a child's development at which the fetus "becomes a person" not arbitrary? I've heard just about everything from "it can't survive on its own" to "it has no brainwaves" to "it's a parasite." Well, I'm pretty sure none of you would want to abort a two year old (if I'm wrong, I don't really want to know), so what makes a two year old so different from a fetus? Can it be physical dependence? Isn't a two year old dependent? Would a two year old survive if it was thrown into the street and left to fend for his/her self?

My argument has nothing to do with my religous beliefs or nonbeliefs at all. It has to do with where you draw the line. If it's drawn at an arbitrary position, or if you set criteria for "personhood," what's to stop you from saying that killing an infant is ok just because infants don't have the same level of awareness as you do?

Yep.

Answer the question.

Thats absurd. Of course its morraly wrong to kill. You are depriving someone else of existance. If you need to ask why its wrong you are a very sick creature.

While pleasure is a byproduct of sex, thats ultimately not the reason for it. The pleasure is only there as a function of getting people to have sex to create lives. You may have sex because you want the fun of it etc, but thats not its primary function


I'm sorry to tell you, but here in the real world sex is far from being for the sole purpose of procreation, no matter the pope's stance on the matter.

Sex is sometimes an act of love. Sometimes and act of lust. Sometimes an act of procreation, yes. Sometimes even an act of agression or domination. But do not presume to tell me that human beings do not transcend their biological instinct of survival of the specy. Human beings in no way have sex only to create more lives.

Otherwise human beings wouldn't have sex when they are sterile. menopaused women wouldn't be able to make love. And we certainly wouldn't copulate more than once or twice a year to procreate.

Maybe that's how YOU view sexuality, but you are not justified in forcing everyone in this world to share your take on human sexuality.

I'm sorry to tell you, but here in the real world sex is far from being for the sole purpose of procreation, no matter the pope's stance on the matter.

Sex is sometimes an act of love. Sometimes and act of lust. Sometimes an act of procreation, yes. Sometimes even an act of agression or domination. But do not presume to tell me that human beings do not transcend their biological instinct of survival of the specy. Human beings in no way have sex only to create more lives.

Otherwise human beings wouldn't have sex when they are sterile. menopaused women wouldn't be able to make love. And we certainly wouldn't copulate more than once or twice a year to procreate.

Maybe that's how YOU view sexuality, but you are not justified in forcing everyone in this world to share your take on human sexuality.

Humans may place other meanings on sex themselves but ultimately the biological reason for sex is to create a life. I am not against people putting other meanings on sex but by putting another meaning on it does not mean you can avoid the consequences. If you roll a dice in a board game, no matter what number you want to win you must accept what happens to it as a result. You dont just crush the dice if you get a numeber that you didnt like. By putting a diffrent meaning on it you do not absolve your self from the consequences. For example, if I steal a car and take it joy riding with a friend, crash the car and my friend dies, I cant be let off by saying "for me it was a fun thing to do, not something that would cause a car crash" .Thats like saying that if I put a diffrent meaning on ownership (as the Buddists do) and drive your car to my home and use it all the time that you cannot prosecute me for stealing.

Since no one answered I'm asking again.

If someone took a picture of a human Zygote and an Animal Zygote could you really tell the difference?

Of course she does. Anyone with a U in Science GCSE can tell you that the biological purpose of the act of sex is to create a life. The purpose of a car is to take you to a destination. While pleasure is a byproduct of sex, thats ultimately not the reason for it. The pleasure is only there as a function of getting people to have sex to create lives. You may have sex because you want the fun of it etc, but thats not its primary functio

Paul disagreed with you. Interesting that you would suggest otherwise.

I am going to pretend you didnt ask that. You are asking me here why I think its morally wrong to kill?

I seriously doubt you think it is always morally wrong to kill.

Is it morally wrong to kill trees? Chimpanzees? Pigs?

Unless you can tell which fetus will live and which wont for certian then its wrong.

You missed the point. 90% of abortions are not of fetuses. They occur before the fetal stage.

But it will be a person if left to develop in its natural place (IE inside the woman). If it dies naturally, thats not our fault, but if we kill it, it is.

It ain't a person until it is a person. Once it is a person it has rights. Why should a potentiality have rights?

A pig or chimp could be smarter than result of the potential "person", is it okay to kill them?

The mothers right to life is not threatened here. If it is then abortion is justified (its kill or be killed). I am not placing a higher value on the babies life here. What is of higher value is what is deprived of the baby. Aborition deprives the baby of life. Pregancy denies the woman of normal life for 9 months.

Every pregnancy carries a certain risk to the life of the mother.

Every pregnancy carries a certain amount of risk to the health of the mother.

See the edited post

You edit doesn't help you. You believe abortion is wrong even when the woman doesn't consent -- so you can't rely on the consent argument to prove abortion is wrong.

Of course she does. Anyone with a U in Science GCSE can tell you that the biological purpose of the act of sex is to create a life. The purpose of a car is to take you to a destination. While pleasure is a byproduct of sex, thats ultimately not the reason for it. The pleasure is only there as a function of getting people to have sex to create lives. You may have sex because you want the fun of it etc, but thats not its primary function

Bullshit. Sex serves many biological purposes beyond procreation.

People will not live to 90 a high percentage of the time. Does that mean killing everyone who reachs 89 is justifyable

Um. Anyone that is 89 is already a person. Thus, they have a right to life.

A zygote or embryo is a clump of cells. It is not a person. It does not have a right to life.

What part about being a person versus not being a person don't you get?

Paul disagreed with you. Interesting that you would suggest otherwise.

Could you elaborate. I dont say that procreation is the ONLY purpose of sex, but it is the primary one, and a consequence that people should be prepared to accept if they have it.

If someone took a picture of a human Zygote and an Animal Zygote could you really tell the difference?

I think the point is that there is one. Does not being able to distinguish a difference make the act of killing the human zygote justifiable?

The woman entered into a situation where she knew it was possible for her to be used as a life support machine for a fetus. By having sex, she accepts that she is in the act that is biologically supposed to create a life.
Whether or not she knows what sex might result in, etc, that does not prove either way what she does or does not accept.

Thats stupid. You cannot seperate sex and pregancy. They are cause and consequence. By shooting someone you must accept the possibiluty that they will die. Sex is bilogically ment to create a life. We may put diffrent meanings on it such as pleasue etc but ultimatley the pleasue only exists to encourage humans to create life.
I think you dont know what you are talking about. Why are women sexually receptive outside of the fertile part of their cycle if sex is only for the direct purpose of conception? Why are post-menopausal women still sexually receptive? Your notion about the purpose of sex is contrary to the empiracal evidence about sexual function.

No, they should accpet that responablity. Obviously they dont. But that doesnt mean that its any less wrong for them not to.
Having an abortion is accepting responsibility.

I am demanding they dont kill. Thats a reasonable demand.
I dont agree, and from what I can tell the majority of human beings are with me on this one.

If someone needed your kidney for transplant and could not live on anyone elses and you refused then you are in effect killing them. If someone is on a life support machine and will no longer nead it in 9 months time but needs it during all those 9 months and you turn it off you are killing them. A woman aborting a child is killing it. No question
Be that as it may (and I'm not agreeing that it is so), that justify laws coercing people into going along with your notions of the right way to do things.

Thats absurd. Of course its morraly wrong to kill. You are depriving someone else of existance. If you need to ask why its wrong you are a very sick creature.

So you don't eat.

You never kill anything.

Or do you think it is OK to kill somethings in some circumstances, but not other things in other circumstances.