NationStates Jolt Archive

An infertile woman fighting for the right to use embryos frozen before she underwent cancer treatment has lost her case at the High Court. The problem is that the embryos were fertilised by her then partner several years ago and they have since split up. He withdrew consent for the embryos to be used, and, as UK law requires the consent of both partners for IVF treatment, a judge has ruled that the embryos must be destroyed.

I'm curious as to what people think of this. Personally, I am not sure how I feel. On the one hand, I do believe that the embryos have been fertilised and therefore he has no more rights over what is done with them then if they'd had a quickie behind the bike sheds and she got pregnant. On the other hand, IVF is a very different concept to a one night stand, and I believe that it is unfair to force someone into parenthood in such a way.

It is not a case of him just giving consent and forgetting her; he would have moral, legal and financial obligations to the child. You can argue that she can 'release him' from such obligations, but the law would not see it that way and would not find such a promise binding. He would have to pay for the child, and, if she were struck by a bus and killed tomorrow, he would have to care for the child.

She is going to try and appeal to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg but an appeal is very unlikely to succeed, and a deadline for the embryos destruction has now been set in October. All she can do now is appeal to her former partner to change his mind, but that's very unlikely. What do you think?

Tell her to go out and adopt one of those poor, miserable, unwanted kids and to stop being so selfish, I guess.

If you want a kid for the kids sake, there are plenty around that nobody else wants. If you want it for your own sake, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

If you want a kid for the kids sake, there are plenty around that nobody else wants. If you want it for your own sake, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

I'll just pop-on over to my mother and demand she abort me, then. I mean, she could have adopted instead of giving birth. Yours could have, too.

Anyone who gets a child gets one for their own sake. Anything else is a load of BS - "I got a child because I didn't want one." Puh-lease.

I'll just pop-on over to my mother and demand she abort me, then. I mean, she could have adopted instead of giving birth. Yours could have, too.

Anyone who gets a child gets one for their own sake. Anything else is a load of BS - "I got a child because I didn't want one." Puh-lease.

And in my case, the world would be a better place if she had. :D

And in my case, the world would be a better place if she had. :D

I'm sorry to hear you have such low self-esteem, and such a negative view of yourself. Perhaps you should deal with that problem of yours before you judge and malign anyone else who is suffering with infertility - in this case, a cancer victim of all people.

I'm curious as to what people think of this. Personally, I am not sure how I feel. On the one hand, I do believe that the embryos have been fertilised and therefore he has no more rights over what is done with them then if they'd had a quickie behind the bike sheds and she got pregnant. On the other hand, IVF is a very different concept to a one night stand, and I believe that it is unfair to force someone into parenthood in such a way.

It is not a case of him just giving consent and forgetting her; he would have moral, legal and financial obligations to the child. You can argue that she can 'release him' from such obligations, but the law would not see it that way and would not find such a promise binding. He would have to pay for the child, and, if she were struck by a bus and killed tomorrow, he would have to care for the child.I have to agree with the courts on this one. This is different than other reproductive issues where the woman has sole jurisdiction over the matter...the embryos are not in her uterus, and therefore she has to find some way to compromise with the man in question. If he doesn't want them to be implanted, then that's his right, be it for financial or for other reasons.

Yeah, it's his right to not have them implanted.

That doesn't mean he's not a jerk for destroying her only chance of having her genetic offspring though.

And in my case, the world would be a better place if she had. :D

Amen to that, sister.

Yeah, it's his right to not have them implanted.

That doesn't mean he's not a jerk for destroying her only chance of having her genetic offspring though.
Yep. But there's no law against being a jerk.

On a side note, I wonder if that new South Dakota law is going to effectively wipe out IVF in that state, since embryos are routinely destroyed in the procedure?

On a side note, I wonder if that new South Dakota law is going to effectively wipe out IVF in that state, since embryos are routinely destroyed in the procedure?
I have to admit to being a bit inconsistent in my politics when it comes to IVF. I don't support abortion except in cases where it is essential, but I do support IVF. I guess it's because abortion is killing an embryo that occurs naturally, while an IVF embryo wouldn't exist at all without technology.

Is that hypocritical? Probably. But I live with it. :D

This is definitely a big fuzzy grey area... The "father" shouldn't be responsible for any children she has from this point, but that's just my opinion.

Still, if she really wants a child so badly, and she cannot conceive one, adoption would be a rather compassionate course of action.

Tell her to go out and adopt one of those poor, miserable, unwanted kids and to stop being so selfish, I guess.

If you want a kid for the kids sake, there are plenty around that nobody else wants. If you want it for your own sake, you shouldn't have one in the first place.
I agree.

I was one of those kids no one wanted. Thank God for grandparents!

I have to admit to being a bit inconsistent in my politics when it comes to IVF. I don't support abortion except in cases where it is essential, but I do support IVF. I guess it's because abortion is killing an embryo that occurs naturally, while an IVF embryo wouldn't exist at all without technology.

Is that hypocritical? Probably. But I live with it. :D
The real question is--do you really live with it? Are you the one who would be raising an unwanted child if abortion were outlawed?

Or, as will be the case in South Dakota if this law stands, will you be the one paying child support for the next 18 years when you knock up a woman during a one-night stand because she couldn't get her hands on birth control or the moring after pill or get an abortion?

I agree.

I was one of those kids no one wanted. Thank God for grandparents!


Lucky. I was WANTED and turned out screwed up!

He would have to pay for the child, and, if she were struck by a bus and killed tomorrow, he would have to care for the child.Un... No. Human pregencies tend to last around 9 months. So is she were hit tomorrow then she'd just be dead. End of story. Hell, they probably wouldn't have even had time to try and implant an embryo.

I completely agree with the courts. Especially as she is cancer patient. She has a much higher chance of the cancer reapearing and then she could be dead within the next 16 years and the father would be forced to look after the child/teenager.

Besides, a child is a child, no matter where their DNA is from (except that it's human...)

Un... No. Human pregencies tend to last around 9 months. So is she were hit tomorrow then she'd just be dead. End of story. Hell, they probably wouldn't have even had time to try and implant an embryo.
ok, thank you Mr Pedantic, for making me look stupid.

I know what I meant. :p

The real question is--do you really live with it? Are you the one who would be raising an unwanted child if abortion were outlawed?

Or, as will be the case in South Dakota if this law stands, will you be the one paying child support for the next 18 years when you knock up a woman during a one-night stand because she couldn't get her hands on birth control or the moring after pill or get an abortion?
I don't believe that being 'unwanted' is a good enough reason to be killed.

To be honest, if you 'knock someone up' without checking they are on birth control first, then it's your own fault. People need to take more responsibility for their actions, rather than fall back on a crude medical procedure.

I don't believe that being 'unwanted' is a good enough reason to be killed.

To be honest, if you 'knock someone up' without checking they are on birth control first, then it's your own fault. People need to take more responsibility for their actions, rather than fall back on a crude medical procedure.
Fine--don't have an abortion. No one is forcing you (unless you're a Chinese immigrant working in the Marianas Islands for one of Tom DeLay's buddies, but that's another story). But for many people--most notably, the people who would be forced to raise those children, it is a good enough reason, and they ought to have that choice.

As to the use of birth control, well, nothing is foolproof. My daughter is proof of that--diaphragm and birth control pills, and we still slipped one past the goalie. What these sorts of punitive laws do is essentially say "don't fuck." I wouldn't want to be a single guy in South Dakota if this law is upheld.

What these sorts of punitive laws do is essentially say "don't fuck." I wouldn't want to be a single guy in South Dakota if this law is upheld.Well, you know, those guys could always just have more gay sex or oral and anal sex...just what the people behind the anti-abortion law want, right?

Well, you know, those guys could always just have more gay sex or oral and anal sex...just what the people behind the anti-abortion law want, right?
That, and sheep-fucking (http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/0306mesa-official.html).

Fine--don't have an abortion. No one is forcing you (unless you're a Chinese immigrant working in the Marianas Islands for one of Tom DeLay's buddies, but that's another story). But for many people--most notably, the people who would be forced to raise those children, it is a good enough reason, and they ought to have that choice.
So the inconvenience of the people 'forced to raise the children' that they themselves conceived is more important than the life of a child? This is, of course, assuming that they keep this 'burden' rather than put it up for adoption.
As to the use of birth control, well, nothing is foolproof. My daughter is proof of that--diaphragm and birth control pills, and we still slipped one past the goalie. What these sorts of punitive laws do is essentially say "don't fuck." I wouldn't want to be a single guy in South Dakota if this law is upheld.
No, nothing is foolproof, but your argument is based on a hedonistic attitude of 'do whatever the hell you like without consequences.' I'm not arguing in favour of celibacy, or only sex after marriage, but I do think that people need to think more about their attitude to casual sex.

Sex, like everything, has consequences, and in the same way if you gorge yourself stupid you get fat, if you go round sleeping with whoever you like you put yourself at risk. Like food, sex is much better for your health if enjoyed sensibly, rather than carelessly.

This is not a simple case, but I have to say that my sympathy lies with the man in this case, who was put in an unenviable situation by his girlfriend at the time, when she was told that she had cancer and went to him and asked him to donate sperm to fertilize her eggs, what was he going to say to her? he had been told she was dying and he was put on the spot. Then, luckily the lady survivies the cancer and the relationship finished, he moved on with his life and I think is now either married or in a relationship, she on the other hand seems not to have moved on and has been fighting this guy for years through the courts for the right basically to get pregnant by him. I do understand her need to have a child, I am a mother, but if she wants a child then she could have a donor egg and have a new partner fertilize it, in that case she would be giving birth to her partners child and still have a pregnancy and a wanted child as the end result. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a modicom of her punishing this guy for moving on with his life. I hope that it is not the case, but she must be putting him through hell. Also the cost in legal bills must be crippling to them both, she needs to be glad that she was lucky to survive her cancer and move on with her life accepting that this man does not want to father her child. If this were the other way around, and the guy was trying to make her carry his baby and she did not wish to, people would be way more angry than they are. I think she has issues way beyond those made public in this debate. I feel for the guy and his family.

If you are going to start a thread concerning a court ruling on a medical procedure, then you should use scientifically appropriate terms in the title of your thread, in this case, 'Frozen Embryos,' not emotionally charged, and inaccurate terms like 'Frozen Babies' (a baby, also known as an infant, is a human during its first year of life, which means from birth to age 1).

That is a touchy subject. It is her only chance to concive a child.But he is also aloud to be a jerk.I would let her have the child but he has the right to do as he wants.

Sex, like everything, has consequences, and in the same way if you gorge yourself stupid you get fat, if you go round sleeping with whoever you like you put yourself at risk. Like food, sex is much better for your health if enjoyed sensibly, rather than carelessly.

And, like obesity has a cure: a proper diet and exercise, or maybe even gastric bypass, unwanted pregnancy has a cure: abortion. Just because certain things have consequences, doesn't mean there are no ways to manage and deal with those consequences.

If you are going to start a thread concerning a court ruling on a medical procedure, then you should use scientifically appropriate terms in the title of your thread, in this case, 'Frozen Embryos,' not emotionally charged, and inaccurate terms like 'Frozen Babies' (a baby, also known as an infant, is a human during its first year of life, which means from birth to age 1).
Seeing as this case is about a woman who wants a baby which is currently frozen as an embryo, I disagree.

So the inconvenience of the people 'forced to raise the children' that they themselves conceived is more important than the life of a child? This is, of course, assuming that they keep this 'burden' rather than put it up for adoption.
In short, yes. Anything short of full choice by the woman is forced pregnancy, and is a form of slavery. And I'm not going to get into the "is it a child or a fetus" debate because it's irrelevant to my mind. As long as it's in the woman's body, it is only potential life, not actualized life, and so the woman should have full say over what happens to her own body. No doubt there are some women who would make choices I would never make, but you know something? The world is full of people like that. I'll probably never skydive--should that stop others from doing so?

No, nothing is foolproof, but your argument is based on a hedonistic attitude of 'do whatever the hell you like without consequences.' I'm not arguing in favour of celibacy, or only sex after marriage, but I do think that people need to think more about their attitude to casual sex.

Sex, like everything, has consequences, and in the same way if you gorge yourself stupid you get fat, if you go round sleeping with whoever you like you put yourself at risk. Like food, sex is much better for your health if enjoyed sensibly, rather than carelessly.
You know something--you're right. I'm a hedonist. Between my divorce 11 years ago and my current relationship (which started six years ago) I fucked like a crazed mongoose. I'll let you in on a little secret--my hedonism didn't affect you one tiny bit. Nor has the alleged hedonism of all those women getting abortions.

Face it--when it comes right down to it, you want to control other's sexual behavior. I don't know why that is, but you may want to examine your own motives for wanting to do so.

Tell her to go out and adopt one of those poor, miserable, unwanted kids and to stop being so selfish, I guess.

If you want a kid for the kids sake, there are plenty around that nobody else wants. If you want it for your own sake, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

Hear, hear!

As long as it's in the woman's body, it is only potential life, not actualized life, and so the woman should have full say over what happens to her own body.
It is not only 'potential life,' it is very much an actual life. From the moment it is conceived it has everything it needs to become a child, everything except time. It is absurd to pick a more convenient time and claim 'this is when life starts.'

You know something--you're right. I'm a hedonist. Between my divorce 11 years ago and my current relationship (which started six years ago) I fucked like a crazed mongoose. I'll let you in on a little secret--my hedonism didn't affect you one tiny bit. Nor has the alleged hedonism of all those women getting abortions.
And I'll let you in on a little secret - all those women having abortions didn't affect me one little bit, but they sure as hell had a big impact on the life of the children they had aborted.

Face it--when it comes right down to it, you want to control other's sexual behavior. I don't know why that is, but you may want to examine your own motives for wanting to do so.
When someone says something you don't like, your defence is to try to make out as if it's only have 'issues' of their own? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no 'motives' for wanting to 'control' sexual behaviour. In fact, if you read what I wrote you will see I did not seek to 'control,' simply to promote responsibility.

It is not only 'potential life,' it is very much an actual life. From the moment it is conceived it has everything it needs to become a child, everything except time. It is absurd to pick a more convenient time and claim 'this is when life starts.'Sorry, but until that little thing gets out of the womb and starts breathing on its own, it is only potential.


And I'll let you in on a little secret - all those women having abortions didn't affect me one little bit, but they sure as hell had a big impact on the life of the children they had aborted.And? Thats their deal and they have to live with it. You don't, so stay the hell out of their business.


When someone says something you don't like, your defence is to try to make out as if it's only have 'issues' of their own? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no 'motives' for wanting to 'control' sexual behaviour. In fact, if you read what I wrote you will see I did not seek to 'control,' simply to promote responsibility.
No, what you want to do--assuming you would want to make abortion illegal--is impose your notions of responsibility on everyone around you.

Sorry, but until that little thing gets out of the womb and starts breathing on its own, it is only potential.
It is 'only potential' in the same way that I am 'only potential' of reaching the age of 100. The fact that I'm not there yet gives you the right to kill me?

And? Thats their deal and they have to live with it. You don't, so stay the hell out of their business.
Why should I stay out of it? Because if everyone 'stayed the hell out' of it, who is going to speak for the people at the centre of it all, the ones without a voice to protest?

No, what you want to do--assuming you would want to make abortion illegal--is impose your notions of responsibility on everyone around you.
I do not want to make abortion totally illegal, I simply believe that abortion as a 'lifestyle' choice is wrong. There are cases when it is needed; I simply do not believe that 'didn't think things through properly' is such a case.

Why should I stay out of it?

It's not your body or your decision. So, you need to butt out.

It's not your body or your decision. So, you need to butt out.
But like I say, it is the body of the aborted child, and as they don't have a voice, someone has to speak on their behalf.

But like I say, it is the body of the aborted child, and as they don't have a voice, someone has to speak on their behalf.

1. There is no child. 2. Women are not living incubators who lose the right to their body just because of some sanctimonious outsider's false sense of morality.

It is 'only potential' in the same way that I am 'only potential' of reaching the age of 100. The fact that I'm not there yet gives you the right to kill me?

No, it means you don't have the automatic right to get to be 100.


?


I do not want to make abortion totally illegal, I simply believe that abortion as a 'lifestyle' choice is wrong. There are cases when it is needed; I simply do not believe that 'didn't think things through properly' is such a case.

No one uses abortion as a 'lifestyle choice'. Show me one woman who has said "hey, im gonna go get pregnant so i can have an abortion"

that's just idiotic.

1. There is no child. 2. Women are not living incubators who lose the right to their body just because of some sanctimonious outsider's false sense of morality.
1. There is a human life.
2. Woman never lose the right to their body. Similarly, the human life should never lose the right to its body. When the two clash, then I would put the human life above an inconvenience.

I don't consider not killing to be a 'false sense of morality.'

Yep. But there's no law against being a jerk.

On a side note, I wonder if that new South Dakota law is going to effectively wipe out IVF in that state, since embryos are routinely destroyed in the procedure?
No, because for some reason it's only murder if an embryo is destroyed in utero or as a consequence of stem cell research. The christian right are basically in favor of IVF despite the fact that it invariably results in more embryos destroyed than implanted.

No one uses abortion as a 'lifestyle choice'. Show me one woman who has said "hey, im gonna go get pregnant so i can have an abortion"
It's nothing to do with deliberately getting pregnant to have an abortion; it is to do with having an abortion because a child would not fit into your lifestyle at that point in time.

I don't believe that being 'unwanted' is a good enough reason to be killed.

To be honest, if you 'knock someone up' without checking they are on birth control first, then it's your own fault. People need to take more responsibility for their actions, rather than fall back on a crude medical procedure.
Why not? We kill rats every day. Rats have a developed brain and therefore more awareness and emotion than a first trimester fetus.

1. There is a human life.Yes, that of the pregnant woman, and hers is the only human life in question.

Why not? We kill rats every day. Rats have a developed brain and therefore more awareness and emotion than a first trimester fetus.
that of the pregnant woman, and hers is the only human life in question.
So? Because it is not aware and has no emotion it is not alive?

As I've already said, it has everything it needs to become a child except time.

But like I say, it is the body of the aborted child, and as they don't have a voice, someone has to speak on their behalf.
You know why they don't have a voice? Because they lack the developed brain to put together a message. They're about as human as a tumor.

So? Because it is not aware and has no emotion it is not alive?

As I've already said, it has everything it needs to become a child except time.
It's alive in the same way as an appendix is alive. Do you force appendicitis patients to keep their appendix regardless of the risk and pain?

You know why they don't have a voice? Because they lack the developed brain to put together a message. They're about as human as a tumor.
A tumour has all the genetic make up necessary to become a child?

So? Because it is not aware and has no emotion it is not alive?

As I've already said, it has everything it needs to become a child except time.
I have everything I need to be a billionaire except money. I still can't buy a 747. Isn't that just as unjust as aborting a fetus that just needs time to become a person?

So? Because it is not aware and has no emotion it is not alive?

As I've already said, it has everything it needs to become a child except time.Of course it's alive, it's just not human life until it's out of the womb.
It has everything it needs to become a child except time and an incubator. If a woman does not wish to be an incubator, she shouldn't be one.

A tumour has all the genetic make up necessary to become a child?
Take an appendix then. It has the genetic make up necessary. So do tonsils. Are you fighting for their right to be left in place or cloned into people?

I have everything I need to be a billionaire except money. I still can't buy a 747.
But to make such an analogy you would have to accept that you were gaining money in such a way that in nine months time you could afford a 747.

If a woman does not wish to be an incubator, she shouldn't be one.
And again, this returns to my point of the inconvenience of the woman against the life of a child.

But to make such an analogy you would have to accept that you were gaining money in such a way that in nine months time you could afford a 747.
Nope, because I could win the lottery, and the baby could be aborted. Or the woman could miscarry. Potential is not a guarantee and shouldn't be treated as such.

A tumour has all the genetic make up necessary to become a child?

Most likely, yes, it does, as does every cell in your body. Depending on the cancer, there are probably some mutations that would make it more difficult, but generally, all the information is still there.


On the beginning topic, part of this, I think, is a failing in the law. It *should* be possible for the two parents to agree that only one of them will have legal rights and responsibilities regarding a future child. While this guy certainly might withdraw consent even if he wouldn't have responsibility in the matter, there wouldn't really be a reason for him to do so.

And again, this returns to my point of the inconvenience of the woman against the life of a child.
A child that doesn't exist yet is less valuable than the convenience of a woman who does.

And again, this returns to my point of the inconvenience of the woman against the life of a child.

Pregnancy, and all that comes with it, is a mere inconvenience to you? You must be male.

Take an appendix then. It has the genetic make up necessary. So do tonsils. Are you fighting for their right to be left in place or cloned into people?
An appendix is never going to become a child, nor are tonsils. You can give them all the time in the world, but you'll never have a human life from them.

Lucky. I was WANTED and turned out screwed up!
lol so what does that say about the pro-choice meme "Make every child a wanted child"? The "unwanted" kid is alive OH DEAR!

An appendix is never going to become a child, nor are tonsils. You can give them all the time in the world, but you'll never have a human life from them.
They can through cloning. Every cell in my appendix could become a copy of me. Since you value the potential for a human being so highly, you should condemn any procedure that removes any cells from a person unless it's for cloning purposes.

A child that doesn't exist yet is less valuable than the convenience of a woman who does.
I couldn't possibly disagree any more.


Pregnancy, and all that comes with it, is a mere inconvenience to you?
Forgive me, but sometimes language must be used that presses the point in order to get the message across. It is not simply an inconvenience in the sense that missing a bus is an inconvenience; it is an inconvenience in the sense that it is something that will do no harm to you and, given time, the impact will be gone (if you adopt the child, for example). Put up with it and it might be something you don't want, but don't put up with it and the child will never even have wants.


None of this has anything to do with the original post, however.

They can through cloning. Every cell in my appendix could become a copy of me. Since you value the potential for a human being so highly, you should condemn any procedure that removes any cells from a person unless it's for cloning purposes.
embryo=appendix cell?

They can through cloning. Every cell in my appendix could become a copy of me. Since you value the potential for a human being so highly, you should condemn any procedure that removes any cells from a person unless it's for cloning purposes.
That is, quite simply, absurd.

God doesn't guarantee that every child conceived will become a live birth.

The medical community doesn't guarantee that every child conceived will become a live birth.

Why, then, should the legislature guarantee such a thing?

I have a strange opinion on parental rights. I not only think that a woman has the right to decide whether she will become a parent, i think that men should have that right too.

When a woman gets pregnant, she should have to tell the father, and the father should have the right to abort his legal obligation. That is to say, he should be able to sever himself legally from having responsibility for the child. Like the women, he should have to decide in the first three months of pregnancy.

That doesn't mean the woman has to abort if the father doesnt want legal responsibility, it just means she will have the child knowing that she is doing it on her own.

I couldn't possibly disagree any more. That's why most people disagree with you. You value a POTENTIAL child over an EXISTING person. That's kind of an insane value judgement.


Forgive me, but sometimes language must be used that presses the point in order to get the message across. It is not simply an inconvenience in the sense that missing a bus is an inconvenience; it is an inconvenience in the sense that it is something that will do no harm to you and, given time, the impact will be gone (if you adopt the child, for example). Put up with it and it might be something you don't want, but don't put up with it and the child will never even have wants.


None of this has anything to do with the original post, however.
Pregnancy has a permanent impact on any woman who goes through it. Physical and emotional. Who are you to force them to go through that for the sake of preserving a POTENTIAL person?

That is, quite simply, absurd.
Sure. As is your judgement that a potential child outweighs the actual woman who wants an abortion.

God doesn't guarantee that every child conceived will become a live birth.

The medical community doesn't guarantee that every child conceived will become a live birth.

Why, then, should the legislature guarantee such a thing?
This is nothing to do with guarantees. To guarantee is to say that something will always work; abortion is deliberately ensuring that it won't work.

embryo=appendix cell?
The nucleus of any cell from any part of the human body (except for red blood cells or sex cells) can be removed and implanted in a woman's egg cell and induced to begin splitting into an embryo. (Kind of oversimplified, sorry)

That's why most people disagree with you. You value a POTENTIAL child over an EXISTING person. That's kind of an insane value judgement.
It's 'insane' to rate life above death?

Pregnancy has a permanent impact on any woman who goes through it. Physical and emotional. Who are you to force them to go through that for the sake of preserving a POTENTIAL person?
Because there is no 'potential' about it. It is alive, and, given time, it will be running about with you and me. I did not 'force' them to go through it, as I am not the one who impregnated them. People should live with the consequences of their actions, rather than rely on medicine to bail them out.

Tell her to go out and adopt one of those poor, miserable, unwanted kids and to stop being so selfish, I guess.

If you want a kid for the kids sake, there are plenty around that nobody else wants. If you want it for your own sake, you shouldn't have one in the first place. So anyone who has a biological child instead of adopting is just incredibly selfish? What a tolerant, and enlightened viewpoint.

That's why most people disagree with you. You value a POTENTIAL child over an EXISTING person. That's kind of an insane value judgement.



Pregnancy has a permanent impact on any woman who goes through it. Physical and emotional. Who are you to force them to go through that for the sake of preserving a POTENTIAL person?
Abortion has impacts, so does sex both physical and emotional. Do you have any idea of the number of women who regret their abortions. I have never heard of a woman who (under normal circumstances) had an abortion and is either happy or proud of that fact. A child doesn't deserve punishment for the crimes of his/her parents. You must realize that in most cases these children would have become people, nipping them in the bud doesn't change that. They have never infringed on the law and yet they are being put to death?

It's 'insane' to rate life above death?


Because there is no 'potential' about it. It is alive, and, given time, it will be running about with you and me. I did not 'force' them to go through it, as I am not the one who impregnated them. People should live with the consequences of their actions, rather than rely on medicine to bail them out.
It's insane to rate the POTENTIAL for human life over the inconvenience and suffering of an existing human. An embryo is not a human being any more than an appendix is. You think it's absurd to value the life of an appendix? Well that's the reason I think it's absurd to value an embryo. I stand by my statement that your value judgement is insane.

You think people should live with the consequences of their actions rather than let medicine bail them out? Then next time you get a cut or puncture wound you should let it become infected and develop gangrene. Live up to your own values, man. Don't let medicine bail you out, instead endure the consequences of your own carelessness.

Abortion has impacts, so does sex both physical and emotional. Do you have any idea of the number of women who regret their abortions. I have never heard of a woman who (under normal circumstances) had an abortion and is either happy or proud of that fact. A child doesn't deserve punishment for the crimes of his/her parents. You must realize that in most cases these children would have become people, nipping them in the bud doesn't change that. They have never infringed on the law and yet they are being put to death?
So let the woman choose the path her life will take. Motherhood or abortion, she makes the choice and deals with the consequences.



The embryos and early-term fetuses you so bravely protect?

They're less alive than the mouse you thoughtlessly kill in a mouse trap.

Because there is no 'potential' about it. It is alive, and, given time, it will be running about with you and me. I did not 'force' them to go through it, as I am not the one who impregnated them. People should live with the consequences of their actions, rather than rely on medicine to bail them out.

"given time" means is is NOT there yet. Not being there yet, it has no rights.

And what if the people involved have used every form of birth control available and still end up pregnant? They have been as responsible as they can be. If they know they won't make a good parent, or even a good incubator, they should be responsible enough not to force the embryo into a horrible situation.

Do you value quantity of life over quality of life?

and as far as living with the consequences of one's actions without medicine to bail them out, do you think that people dying of mesothelioma should "live with it"? I mean, they did choose to work a dangerous job. Deny THEM medical care! your argument there is simply inane.

An appendix is never going to become a child, nor are tonsils. You can give them all the time in the world, but you'll never have a human life from them.

The right incubator and the right amount of time, you'll have cloned yourself a person.

Pregnancy is much more than an "inconvenience". It's having done -one- mistake and paying for it on an escalating scale over the course of nine months, leading up to a birth in which the woman could die, then having the child and raising it and being responsible for it, which she may not be able to do (financially, medically, mentally, emotionally) for many reasons.


Point is, you can't choose on a case-by-case basis which women deserve to have a reprieve from such a punishment for their mistake, and which don't. It's got to be across the board or nothing at all, for it to be fair.

What I do suggest, however, is that the cost of abortion be half the amount it would cost to raise the child through pregnancy and into the first year of its life, and that a woman could only get two or three abortions in her lifetime.

To put that into perspective, it's kind of like breaking a lease on your apartment - you add up all the months you have left and pay half of the rent for each month, then leave. Babies cost a shitload more than apartments do. Not just buying stuff for them, basic things, but aside from food and clothing, you need to buy baby accessories so they'll be safe, baby accessories so they'll be entertained, comfortable, content, clean, so you'll be able to wash their clothes (in a separate load, mind you), so they'll be healthy, so they'll grow up to be intelligent -

All these things, you have to pay for, and it's just infinitely worse if you're a single parent, and out of the question if you're on welfare or minimum wage or anything under 50k a year salary, really, and that's the bare minimum.

Obviously the child is going to suffer because mom's alone and poor and wasn't emotionally ready for any of this. Now, she could put him up for adoption, but there's already so many kids waiting to be adopted. Upon that, there's way too many people in the world in general. The most logical way to alleviate this situation is if the child never exists in the first place. She pays the fine, she learns her lesson. If she doesn't, then she's got one more chance (though for her not to have gotten the lesson would probably mean she's a rich bitch with a rich family who doesn't care how much the fine is) and after that, it's the death penalty. Anyone that irresponsible and ignorant who has that much cash to flaunt around to fix their mistakes shouldn't be alive.

The nucleus of any cell from any part of the human body (except for red blood cells or sex cells) can be removed and implanted in a woman's egg cell and induced to begin splitting into an embryo. (Kind of oversimplified, sorry)
VERY oversimplified. One of these procedures takes technology and an egg donor and much more, just planting a cell in my uterus doesn't do anything unless its a sperm and it manages to get to the egg. Hec, there are already cells in my uterus, my uterus is made up of cells. However if one of those cells happens to be a zygote- it is not just any cell and it is not my own cell it it is a seperate entity and growing into a child.
Children have the potential to become adults, does that make them less important than an existing adult?

It's insane to rate the POTENTIAL for human life over the inconvenience and suffering of an existing human. An embryo is not a human being any more than an appendix is. You think it's absurd to value the life of an appendix? Well that's the reason I think it's absurd to value an embryo. I stand by my statement that your value judgement is insane.
You have ignored what you didn't like to hear. An embryo is not 'potential;' is has everything it needs to become a child except the chance to grow. An appendix is not going to become a child, no matter how much you like to think the two are the same.

For the record, I don't believe you are insane. I'm afraid the world is never going to fit into your own personal view of 'ideal,' and if you're simply going to call anyone who disagrees with you about anything 'insane' then you're not going to know many 'sane' people.'

You think people should live with the consequences of their actions rather than let medicine bail them out? Then next time you get a cut or puncture wound you should let it become infected and develop gangrene. Live up to your own values, man. Don't let medicine bail you out, instead endure the consequences of your own carelessness.
The purpose of medicine is to help and heal life. I can happily get medical attention if it is going to keep me alive. While I can accidently cut myself or be involved in a car crash, however, it is difficult to see how anyone can 'accidently' have sexual intercourse.

Medicine should heal, not kill.

VERY oversimplified. One of these procedures takes technology and an egg donor and much more, just planting a cell in my uterus doesn't do anything unless its a sperm and it manages to get to the egg. Hec, there are already cells in my uterus, my uterus is made up of cells. However if one of those cells happens to be a zygote- it is not just any cell and it is not my own cell it it is a seperate entity and growing into a child.
Children have the potential to become adults, does that make them less important than an existing adult?
Once again, potential shouldn't be treated as a guarantee. A zygote is not a child. Though it's technically as alive as any cell in your body, it is not a person and therefore has the same protections as any cell in your body. No less, that is nobody can damage it against your will, and no more, that is you can remove it if you want to.

Opinons? ok.

Well, I think they should make *all* the embroys into babies. But they cannot do that right bcuz each got 2 go into a Mother? What were they thinking?

And Y did they wait so long 2 get going so that they break up? Maybe they were not so serious before. What was their plan? No plan?

There is some info here we dunno they R not telling, how we can give them advice? He gives the sperm 2 her, and now he wants 2 take it back? *LOL* Weird.

Luv,

Suzy :)

I have never heard of a woman who (under normal circumstances) had an abortion and is either happy or proud of that fact.

Maybe they aren't happy or proud about it, but ask them if they would do it again if faced with the same choice.

Sometimes there is no good choice, and you have to figure out which one is less bad overall. It doesn't make you happy to make the choice, but making the choice is taking responsibility.

You make the best choice you can given what you know. And if what you know is that your life will be ruined by a child, and the POTENTIAL child's life will be ruined by being born to you, then the decision to abort is saving that potential innocent victim from being victimized any further.

Same as putting a dog down. You do it to save suffering. You don't go around being happy or proud you did it.

I fully agree with the court.
If she *had* wanted children, she should've got one while she still could! But she *didn't* want to. She had them frozen instead. Now she suddenly changed her mind and is surprised that her ex-partner doesn't want anymore :rolleyes:

Philosopy--here's a scenario for you, since you seem to be arguing that embryos are equal to living breathing beings. There's a fire in a fertility clinic, and you have the option of saving a petri dish full of embryos--say there's twenty in there--and a living two-year old child. No way to save both. What do you take--the potential in the petri dish or the living being?

"given time" means is is NOT there yet. Not being there yet, it has no rights.
I think every human has rights, whether it is 'there yet' or not.

And what if the people involved have used every form of birth control available and still end up pregnant? They have been as responsible as they can be. If they know they won't make a good parent, or even a good incubator, they should be responsible enough not to force the embryo into a horrible situation.
I admit that this would be a terrible situation. However, no one can 'know' they would not be a good parent, and I think it better to give the baby a chance than none at all.

Do you value quantity of life over quality of life?
Nope. Just life.

You have ignored what you didn't like to hear. An embryo is not 'potential;' is has everything it needs to become a child except the chance to grow. An appendix is not going to become a child, no matter how much you like to think the two are the same.

For the record, I don't believe you are insane. I'm afraid the world is never going to fit into your own personal view of 'ideal,' and if you're simply going to call anyone who disagrees with you about anything 'insane' then you're not going to know many 'sane' people.'


The purpose of medicine is to help and heal life. I can happily get medical attention if it is going to keep me alive. While I can accidently cut myself or be involved in a car crash, however, it is difficult to see how anyone can 'accidently' have sexual intercourse.

Medicine should heal, not kill.

It has everything it needs EXCEPT the chance to grow. Don't you understand that if it lacks one thing it's not a person, it's a potential person. You're ignoring your own words!

An appendix cell lacking the cloning proceedure will not become a person. An embryo lacking the time to develop in utero won't either. That's why the analogy works. That's why your position is as insane as the appendix proposition I brought up.

On your assertion that sex isn't accidental, it's sometimes unintentional. Well how about a woman who's walking home from work or school and is raped? She certainly didn't mean for it to happen. Not an accident, but clearly not intentional. How about the cases when birth control fails? That's clearly an accident.

Children have the potential to become adults, does that make them less important than an existing adult?

i dont know about less important, but the fact is they have less rights than an adult.

The right incubator and the right amount of time, you'll have cloned yourself a person.

Pregnancy is much more than an "inconvenience". It's having done -one- mistake and paying for it on an escalating scale over the course of nine months, leading up to a birth in which the woman could die, then having the child and raising it and being responsible for it, which she may not be able to do (financially, medically, mentally, emotionally) for many reasons.


Point is, you can't choose on a case-by-case basis which women deserve to have a reprieve from such a punishment for their mistake, and which don't. It's got to be across the board or nothing at all, for it to be fair.

What I do suggest, however, is that the cost of abortion be half the amount it would cost to raise the child through pregnancy and into the first year of its life, and that a woman could only get two or three abortions in her lifetime.

To put that into perspective, it's kind of like breaking a lease on your apartment - you add up all the months you have left and pay half of the rent for each month, then leave. Babies cost a shitload more than apartments do. Not just buying stuff for them, basic things, but aside from food and clothing, you need to buy baby accessories so they'll be safe, baby accessories so they'll be entertained, comfortable, content, clean, so you'll be able to wash their clothes (in a separate load, mind you), so they'll be healthy, so they'll grow up to be intelligent -

All these things, you have to pay for, and it's just infinitely worse if you're a single parent, and out of the question if you're on welfare or minimum wage or anything under 50k a year salary, really, and that's the bare minimum.

Obviously the child is going to suffer because mom's alone and poor and wasn't emotionally ready for any of this. Now, she could put him up for adoption, but there's already so many kids waiting to be adopted. Upon that, there's way too many people in the world in general. The most logical way to alleviate this situation is if the child never exists in the first place. She pays the fine, she learns her lesson. If she doesn't, then she's got one more chance (though for her not to have gotten the lesson would probably mean she's a rich bitch with a rich family who doesn't care how much the fine is) and after that, it's the death penalty. Anyone that irresponsible and ignorant who has that much cash to flaunt around to fix their mistakes shouldn't be alive.

If it is likely that the woman will die, she needn't have the child. Because there are already kids up for adoption we should kill any other who will be? Once the lady's pregnant exists, pretending like it never did won't it make so. That child did exist- it wasn't big and it wasn't out of the womb but it existed nonetheless. Every child aborted existed.
She learns her lesson? Oh like the self-confessed welfare queen who didn't want to "give up her night life" so she used welfare to get seven abortions? Yeah you can really see how any woman who gets an abortion has learned a lesson. How she's just a rich bitch. Oh, and that lesson? Children don't matter if you don't want them.

I like how you say that people with money shouldn't be alive, just another example of your value for human life.

Philosopy--here's a scenario for you, since you seem to be arguing that embryos are equal to living breathing beings. There's a fire in a fertility clinic, and you have the option of saving a petri dish full of embryos--say there's twenty in there--and a living two-year old child. No way to save both. What do you take--the potential in the petri dish or the living being?


EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!! Philosophy, please answer.

I think every human has rights, whether it is 'there yet' or not. <snipped> So you think someone who's not even in existence has the same rights as someone who is. How is that not crazy?

Philosopy--here's a scenario for you, since you seem to be arguing that embryos are equal to living breathing beings. There's a fire in a fertility clinic, and you have the option of saving a petri dish full of embryos--say there's twenty in there--and a living two-year old child. No way to save both. What do you take--the potential in the petri dish or the living being?
My argument has been based on the fact that an embryo in a mother needs nothing but time to become a person. An embryo in a petra dish does not meet the same criteria.

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!! Philosophy, please answer.
Give me time! It's hard to keep up with you all, you know... :p

i dont know about less important, but the fact is they have less rights than an adult.
Their rights are more protected than an adult's- they have more sheltered rights. The state recognizes their dependency on adults and attempts to protect them from being exploited and abused.

My argument has been based on the fact that an embryo in a mother needs nothing but time to become a person. An embryo in a petra dish does not meet the same criteria.
So one extra step makes all the difference between a potential life and nothing at all?

If all embryos were let to follow through with their growth, we'd have nothing but: 1. No embryos - we can't have any testing, and science will go nowhere in this field. 2. Lots of babies, and nobody to raise them. 3. A large population increase, which we DO NOT NEED. If anything, we need less people.

My argument has been based on the fact that an embryo in a mother needs nothing but time to become a person. An embryo in a petra dish does not meet the same criteria.

An embryo inside a mother is NOT guaranteed to be born. It is still simply a POTENTIAL person, same as the ones in the petri dish.

Also, according to this, you are saying that its okay to kill embryos before they are implanted. Is that correct? So even though the sperm has met the egg, they aren't humans until they are implanted? Please clarify.

Their rights are more protected than an adult's- they have more sheltered rights. The state recognizes their dependency on adults and attempts to protect them from being exploited and abused.

Sure, the FEW RIGHTS THEY DO HAVE are protected.

But those rights are still more limited than what an adult has.

So one extra step makes all the difference between a potential life and nothing at all?
I do believe that when everything is in place except time then yes, this is the difference. Any other point is subjective, and depends entirely on what you believe 'life' to be. Everything but time is a constant, and an objective point to place the start of life.

1. There is a human life.

The woman's.

2. Woman never lose the right to their body.

They do under your anti-choice stance. You want to force them to become incubators - to rule over their right to decide what happens with their body. So you indeed want to take women's right to their body away.

I don't consider not killing to be a 'false sense of morality.'

When there is nothing to kill, it is.

If it is likely that the woman will die, she needn't have the child. Because there are already kids up for adoption we should kill any other who will be? Once the lady's pregnant exists, pretending like it never did won't it make so. That child did exist- it wasn't big and it wasn't out of the womb but it existed nonetheless. Every child aborted existed.
She learns her lesson? Oh like the self-confessed welfare queen who didn't want to "give up her night life" so she used welfare to get seven abortions? Yeah you can really see how any woman who gets an abortion has learned a lesson. How she's just a rich bitch. Oh, and that lesson? Children don't matter if you don't want them.

I like how you say that people with money shouldn't be alive, just another example of your value for human life.

I don't value human life because they're humans, I value humans on the basis of what -kind- of humans they are.

Once again, though, you're really not listening. I went into heavy detail about the attention and money required to even -have- the child, much less raise it, and you shrink it down to "Oh like the self-confessed welfare queen who didn't want to 'give up her night life'..." - Not listening! Not only would she lose her "night life", she might lose her "day life", also! All life, lost! There are always possibilities for complications during, before, and after pregnancy - many women die during birth without sign of complication beforehand. You can't know. Even if she didn't lose her "day life", she would still lose her "personal life", and her "freedom", and her "plans for a future", because all that shit would go out the window once a baby arrives.

Mistakes happen, which is why I suggested the three-strikes scenario. One, two, dead.

im a firm believer that if men had to carry the pregnancies to term, instead of women, abortion would not only be legal, but the government would pay for it and it would be available at the local convenience store.

but that's just me.

An embryo inside a mother is NOT guaranteed to be born. It is still simply a POTENTIAL person, same as the ones in the petri dish.
It is not 'guaranteed' to be born, but then I am not 'guaranteed' to reach my next birthday; it doesn't give anyone the right to kill me.

Also, according to this, you are saying that its okay to kill embryos before they are implanted. Is that correct? So even though the sperm has met the egg, they aren't humans until they are implanted? Please clarify.
I believe that the abortion issue is an incredibly difficult one to understand, and the only way to balance the rights of mothers against the needs of the unborn child is to be as objective as possible. This is why I have based my argument on the issue of 'everything but time.' The issue of the embryos in the dish and whether they are life is incredibly complicated, and to be perfectly honest I don't know where I stand on it myself. That's why I started this thread.

im a firm believer that if men had to carry the pregnancies to term, instead of women, abortion would not only be legal, but the government would pay for it and it would be available at the local convenience store.

but that's just me.
I'd probably agree with you on that. I'm not someone who can be conveniently slotted into a 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' camp; I simply wish to give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt and avoid terminating it unnecessarily.

im a firm believer that if men had to carry the pregnancies to term, instead of women, abortion would not only be legal, but the government would pay for it and it would be available at the local convenience store.

but that's just me.

It's the old saying: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

I'd probably agree with you on that. I'm not someone who can be conveniently slotted into a 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' camp; I simply wish to give the unborn child the benefit of the doubt and avoid terminating it unnecessarily.

And who are you to decide over someone else's body as to what is necessary or not?

I do believe that when everything is in place except time then yes, this is the difference. Any other point is subjective, and depends entirely on what you believe 'life' to be. Everything but time is a constant, and an objective point to place the start of life.
So what's the big deal about time? Why does time make a difference and the need for implantation PLUS time makes all the difference in the world between a living thing worthy of protection and a living thing that can be destroyed with impunity.

It is not 'guaranteed' to be born, but then I am not 'guaranteed' to reach my next birthday; it doesn't give anyone the right to kill me.


That's because it's on the lawbooks that once you are born, you have the right not to be murdered.

NO such right exists for an embryo.

hello everyone, this is my first time. it seems this is an issue of rights - the right of the woman to have a child even though cancer has rendered her incapable of doing so and tech allowing her to live her life as normal as possiable - the right of the father and his sperm. or is he just being malicious. i have to go with the woman on this one since he entered into an agreement and now for what ever reason wants out of the agreement. there men once again who donate tons of sperm , don't why
? (perhaps want to rule the world?) that will never know their offspring even if they were to meet at the golden arches for a chem burger, can they go to the sperm bank and request their sperm be destroyed and who can use them if they change their minds. no sure on that one.

Forgive me, but sometimes language must be used that presses the point in order to get the message across. It is not simply an inconvenience in the sense that missing a bus is an inconvenience; it is an inconvenience in the sense that it is something that will do no harm to you and, given time, the impact will be gone (if you adopt the child, for example). Put up with it and it might be something you don't want, but don't put up with it and the child will never even have wants.

Once again, you are either male or have no idea what pregnancy does, or both. There are irreversible changes made to the woman's body during pregnancy. She is at an increased risk for all sorts of diseases later on in life. Complications from a pregnancy could kill her or leave her barren and unable to have future children. And so forth.... The effects of a pregnancy don't end when you give birth, even if you don't keep the child yourself.

Sure, the FEW RIGHTS THEY DO HAVE are protected.

But those rights are still more limited than what an adult has.

Not because they are legally less valuable (if anything more valuable) or less human, simply because they are more vulnerable and the state is attempting to sheild them from mistreatment as human beings. The laws exist to protect. Drinking age exists because lawmakers decided that children couldn't handle alchohol and that it is irresponsible to endager people by giving it to them at a young age. Statutory rape laws exist to protect a child from being exploited as a sex toy. These laws were put in place to protect children as people- ten year olds aren't being denied rights to drink and have sex with forty year olds because the adult is entitled to more since they are existing adults. Forty year olds are being denied that sex because they have more power over the ten year old and the law is trying to account for that by protecting them.
Its not that the children are having rights denied them or taken away because they aren't adults, its that they are having stronger shelters on their rights because they don't have the same ability to protect themselves.

hello everyone, this is my first time.

Congrats on losing your forum cherry! You are a brave soul to begin on such a loaded topic as this. I commend you.

And who are you to decide over someone else's body as to what is necessary or not?
I believe that inconvenience to the mother is far from 'necessary,' as I've already said.

So what's the big deal about time? Why does time make a difference and the need for implantation PLUS time makes all the difference in the world between a living thing worthy of protection and a living thing that can be destroyed with impunity.
Because when there is nothing but time left then it is no longer 'potential;' it is growing in the same way we all did, and requires no further changes to become a person.

I am the first to confess that this is a blunt line to draw, but when a line has to be drawn in a case such as this I prefer to put it in as objective a place as possible.

Personally, I'm a Darwinist. Natural Selection, and all that. I think if the baby can't defend itself verbally or physically, it's gone. The defense of the baby has always, in the entire history of the world, been the mother. If the mother doesn't want to defend the baby, then the baby's gone.

And before you ask: yes. I believe that if I were to be kidnapped and I couldn't defend myself against my attackers, then I should be kidnapped. Fortunately, I -can- defend myself, because I have a brain and muscles and sharp things in my house. Babies have none of these things in the early stages, and they don't get sharp things until they're at least four. =P

Point being, if you're a religious person, you could say god doesn't want the majority of babies to live, because he's made them so ill-equipped to defend themselves.

If you're not religious, then you can say "It's her body." and leave it at that.

Once again, you are either male or have no idea what pregnancy does, or both. There are irreversible changes made to the woman's body during pregnancy. She is at an increased risk for all sorts of diseases later on in life. Complications from a pregnancy could kill her or leave her barren and unable to have future children. And so forth.... The effects of a pregnancy don't end when you give birth, even if you don't keep the child yourself.
Absolutly true. What is also true, however, is that there are many, many risks involved in a termination, physical and emotional. It is not possible to argue that 'pregnancy is a harm that can be avoided through abortion,' because there is just as great a risk from the abortion.

Not because they are legally less valuable (if anything more valuable) or less human, simply because they are more vulnerable and the state is attempting to sheild them from mistreatment as human beings. The laws exist to protect. Drinking age exists because lawmakers decided that children couldn't handle alchohol and that it is irresponsible to endager people by giving it to them at a young age. Statutory rape laws exist to protect a child from being exploited as a sex toy. These laws were put in place to protect children as people- ten year olds aren't being denied rights to drink and have sex with forty year olds because the adult is entitled to more since they are existing adults. Forty year olds are being denied that sex because they have more power over the ten year old and the law is trying to account for that by protecting them.
Its not that the children are having rights denied them or taken away because they aren't adults, its that they are having stronger shelters on their rights because they don't have the same ability to protect themselves.

I agree they have the right to be protected once they are born. But they do not have the right to vote, nor the right to decide whether they will go to school or not, nor the right to own property or enter into contracts. They don't have the right to drive until a certain age, they don't have the right to leave the country without a parent's permission.

Shall i continue?

You have ignored what you didn't like to hear. An embryo is not 'potential;' is has everything it needs to become a child except the chance to grow.

In other words, it is potential. You are contradicting yourself. Having everything it needs to become something means it has the potentiao to become that thing.

An appendix is not going to become a child, no matter how much you like to think the two are the same.

It could be, if the appendix cell was used for cloning.

I believe that inconvenience to the mother is far from 'necessary,' as I've already said.

Learn to quote the correct person. I wrote that, not Drunk Commies. And why should any woman care what you think? Why should she be forced to have a child she does not want because of your idea of what is or is not necessary?

there is just as great a risk from the abortion.


Okay, im gonna have to ask you to support this statement with facts.

That's because it's on the lawbooks that once you are born, you have the right not to be murdered.

NO such right exists for an embryo.
I do not believe it is alright to kill something simply because there is no law that says you can't.

Absolutly true. What is also true, however, is that there are many, many risks involved in a termination, physical and emotional. It is not possible to argue that 'pregnancy is a harm that can be avoided through abortion,' because there is just as great a risk from the abortion.

Actually, the mortality and complication risks are higher in giving birth than having an abortion. Abortion is safer than giving birth.

I do not believe it is alright to kill something simply because there is no law that says you can't.

Nothing is killed.

there is just as great a risk from the abortion.

Where are you getting your facts?

These are the facts i found:

Death rate statistics for mother during pregnancy/childbirth:
399 female deaths for "pregnancy and childbirth" in America in the USA 2001(NCHS, 2003)

Compare this to the statistics on deaths due to abortion
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/morbid.htm

Learn to quote the correct person. I wrote that, not Drunk Commies. And why should any woman care what you think? Why should she be forced to have a child she does not want because of your idea of what is or is not necessary?
Sorry, but when you're trying to answer half a dozen people at once, and by time you've finished writing one thing there are another half a dozen comments to look at, mistakes get made.

Why is 'didn't take the risks of sex seriously and so I'm going to kill something because of my stupidness' necessary?

I believe that inconvenience to the mother is far from 'necessary,' as I've already said.


Because when there is nothing but time left then it is no longer 'potential;' it is growing in the same way we all did, and requires no further changes to become a person.

I am the first to confess that this is a blunt line to draw, but when a line has to be drawn in a case such as this I prefer to put it in as objective a place as possible.
So a mass of cells with no brain, no ability to move around or even exist independently of a life support system (which happens to be a woman with rights of her own), is now a person? How? Is it because it has a soul?

Where are you getting your facts?

These are the facts i found:

Death rate statistics for mother during pregnancy/childbirth:
399 female deaths for "pregnancy and childbirth" in America in the USA 2001(NCHS, 2003)

Compare this to the statistics on deaths due to abortion
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/morbid.htm
http://www.womenscenter.org/risks.htm

I just found that by Googling; do you really want to just throw 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' websites at each other for a bit?

Why is 'didn't take the risks of sex seriously and so I'm going to kill something because of my stupidness' necessary?

That's a BIG assumption, Phil. Not everyone who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy didnt' take the risks seriously. Accidents happen.

You seem to think that the only women who have abortions are cocaine addicts and welfare recipients and outright sluts. Get a clue.

Learn to quote the correct person. I wrote that, not Drunk Commies. And why should any woman care what you think? Why should she be forced to have a child she does not want because of your idea of what is or is not necessary?
It's an easy mistake to make Fass. We're just so damn similar that people have trouble telling us apart.

No matter which way you look at this, it's screwed up. The judge is talking about killing off this couple's offspring simply because they can't work out an agreement, this could quite likely be the only chance the woman in question has of having a child (I dunno what the law is in the UK, but in the US, from what I've heard, it's just shy of impossible for people with either a serious illness or who are single to adopt) the guy was involved in whatever agreement they had beforehand and is now basically being given a solid gold plated way out of it...

This entire thing just stinks.

And this is before one's even brought up the ethical questions of how a lot of these places do things.

http://www.womenscenter.org/risks.htm

I just found that by Googling; do you really want to just throw 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' websites at each other for a bit?

Those risks are the same for pregnant women who don't have abortions.

Im asking you to support your statement with statistics. You said abortion is JUST AS dangerous as pregnancy. Your website does not compare to other pregnancies.

Im not asking for pro-life/pro-choice websites. The statistics i used were from GOVERNMENT SOURCES. thankyou very much.

It's an easy mistake to make Fass. We're just so damn similar that people have trouble telling us apart.

What a cruel thing to say.

Why is 'didn't take the risks of sex seriously and so I'm going to kill something because of my stupidness' necessary?

Again, why should she care what you think? Why should you decide what happens to her body?

That's a BIG assumption, Phil. Not everyone who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy didnt' take the risks seriously. Accidents happen.

You seem to think that the only women who have abortions are cocaine addicts and welfare recipients and outright sluts. Get a clue.
Actually, you have just assigned that assumption to me. I claimed no such thing.

Actually, you have just assigned that assumption to me. I claimed no such thing.

you did, but im not going to search the whole topic for it. You made a distinct comment about the welfare lady who had abortion after abortion so she could continue to go out partying.

Remember that?

Those risks are the same for pregnant women who don't have abortions.

Im asking you to support your statement with statistics. You said abortion is JUST AS dangerous as pregnancy. Your website does not compare to other pregnancies.

Im not asking for pro-life/pro-choice websites. The statistics i used were from GOVERNMENT SOURCES. thankyou very much.
I didn't claim that website was any good, simply that it would be easy for us to throw statistics and 'surveys' at each other all night.

Pregnancy might have risks, but they are a justified risk. An unnecessary abortion is an unnecessary risk. And, of course, this is ignoring the fact that death occurs in 100% of abortion cases; you are confining your mortality rates to the mother.

you did, but im not going to search the whole topic for it. You made a distinct comment about the welfare lady who had abortion after abortion so she could continue to go out partying.

Remember that?
I won't be rude, because I made the comment a minute ago about mistakes being made, but that wasn't me.

I didn't claim that website was any good, simply that it would be easy for us to throw statistics and 'surveys' at each other all night.

Pregnancy might have risks, but they are a justified risk. An unnecessary abortion is an unnecessary risk. And, of course, this is ignoring the fact that death occurs in 100% of abortion cases; you are confining your mortality rates to the mother.

If you have other government statistics that don't match mine, by all means, throw them.

Who justifies the risk? YOU? YOu, who doesn't have to endure the risks?

and citing the death of the embryo requires the assumption that the embryo is alive, which brings us back to the example of the burning fertility clinic. If the embryos are alive, then do you save them or the actual living 2-year-old?

YOu can't have it both ways.

If you have other government statistics that don't match mine, by all means, throw them.

Who justifies the risk? YOU? YOu, who doesn't have to endure the risks?

and citing the death of the embryo requires the assumption that the embryo is alive, which brings us back to the example of the burning fertility clinic. If the embryos are alive, then do you save them or the actual living 2-year-old?

YOu can't have it both ways.
Why is a 'government' statistic any more valid than an independent survey? I get attacked on here more often than not for being too trusting of the Government.

The risks are justified in a very simple way.

Pregnancy = slight risk of death on the negative side, two lives on the positive side.
Abortion = slight risk of death on the negative side, one life on the positive side.

The embryo is alive because it needs nothing more than time to be a child, but we've been over this ground repeatedly already.

What a cruel thing to say.
Deal with it silly Swede. Except for the fact that you're a sarcastic,gay, Swedish, pacifist doctor, and I'm a (usually) polite straight, American, war-mongering ex-criminal we're identical.

Deal with it silly Swede. Except for the fact that you're a sarcastic,gay, Swedish, pacifist doctor, and I'm a (usually) polite straight, American, war-mongering ex-criminal we're identical.

Nooooooooooooooes! *grabs head while everything spins around him*

Okay, since you want to consider potential life as actual life, then let's take it another step...

You have a married couple. With the natural progression of time, there is the potential of a live birth. So should couples be prohibited from having sex if they don't want children? Should they be prohibited from having vasectomies or their tubes tied? All of these will prevent potential lives.

Should pregnant women be kept in bed and supervised so they dont' do anything that might endanger the pregnancy?

Should a woman have her diet regulated and her activities approved, so that just in case she gets pregnant, she won't be risking the life of the child.? Maybe we should put all women of childbearing age into an institution that makes sure they are suitable for incubating embryos.

Barefoot and pregnant! Because that's what the moral majority(which is NEITHER) wants?

I think that everyone who wants to outlaw abortion should be put on a list to recieve their share of the million plus babies that would otherwise be born. Maybe after the tenth bundle of joy shows up on their doorstep, they will think of a more realistic approach.

Why should you decide what happens to her body?
She's more than welcome to decide what happens to her body. I am talking about what happens to the childs body, because the child cannot speak up for itself.

Again, I fear I'm simply repeating points I've already made. Seeing as I have to be off, I'll take this opportunity to bow out.

I hope you don't think I'm running away, I just doubt we're ever going to be in agreement and so this is as good a point to go as any.:p

Okay, since you want to consider potential life as actual life, then let's take it another step...

You have a married couple. With the natural progression of time, there is the potential of a live birth. So should couples be prohibited from having sex if they don't want children? Should they be prohibited from having vasectomies or their tubes tied? All of these will prevent potential lives.
Why does contraception in any way go against what I have argued? I have stated repeatedly that a fertilised embryo is life because it has everything it needs to become life. Neither a sperm nor an unfertilised egg can become life without genetic changes, no matter how long you leave them.
Should pregnant women be kept in bed and supervised so they dont' do anything that might endanger the pregnancy?

Should a woman have her diet regulated and her activities approved, so that just in case she gets pregnant, she won't be risking the life of the child.? Maybe we should put all women of childbearing age into an institution that makes sure they are suitable for incubating embryos.[/QUOTE]
Again, why? I have not argued anywhere that a woman is nothing more than an 'incubator.' I am arguing in favour of people taking responsibility for their actions, not creating a breeding factory.

I think that everyone who wants to outlaw abortion should be put on a list to recieve their share of the million plus babies that would otherwise be born. Maybe after the tenth bundle of joy shows up on their doorstep, they will think of a more realistic approach.
Do you honestly believe that 'it would be hard to take care of people' is a valid excuse to kill something? Personally, I tend not to judge the life of a child on the basis of the harsh terms of 'realism.' Maybe it's inconvenient for me, but it's sure as hell 'inconvenient' to the child.

THe 'child' can't speak for itself, because it is just a lump of cells with no brain, no desires, no agenda.

ANd if it did have desires and an agenda, WHO ARE YOU to decide what those are?

I believe that every life comes into being for a purpose. I also believe that some of those lives' purposes can be fulfilled by simply entering this world as an embryo and then leaving. We don't know the big picture, so we can't say what is going to turn out to be a good thing and which will turn out badly.

do you save a man from drowning? what if that man turns out to be another serial killer? what if that man really WANTS to die, and you decide he shouldnt. You don't know if that lump of cells wants to live or not, nor what kind of wonderful/horrible life it will lead should it be born. You are making a value judgement with no proof there is any value in the embryo being destroyed.

I believe that the abortion issue is an incredibly difficult one to understand, and the only way to balance the rights of mothers against the needs of the unborn child is to be as objective as possible. This is why I have based my argument on the issue of 'everything but time.' The issue of the embryos in the dish and whether they are life is incredibly complicated, and to be perfectly honest I don't know where I stand on it myself. That's why I started this thread.

Your argument from potential is not objective - it isn't even logical. If something will become something else, it is not yet that something else.

Absolutly true. What is also true, however, is that there are many, many risks involved in a termination, physical and emotional. It is not possible to argue that 'pregnancy is a harm that can be avoided through abortion,' because there is just as great a risk from the abortion.

It isn't really "just as great a risk," as many of the physical risks simply are no longer there. Carrying a pregnancy to term places stresses upon the body that termination that pregnancy will not.

Of course, even if it were "just as great a risk," that would simply be more reason to leave the decision up to the mother - the one who must decide what risks to take and what risks not to take. I can decide between various treatments (or no treatment at all) for any condition I find myself in, by personally weighing the risks and possible benefits of the treatment.

Have them both sign a legally binding contract removing all the father's legal ties to the children including the right to visit the children.
Simple, everyone wins. She get's her own blood children and he has no responsibility.

Have them both sign a legally binding contract removing all the father's legal ties to the children including the right to visit the children.
Simple, everyone wins. She get's her own blood children and he has no responsibility.
because men are such shallow creatures that the only thought they have about their own children is whether or not they have to support them?

The embryo is alive because it needs nothing more than time to be a child, but we've been over this ground repeatedly already.

A terminally ill patient is dead because it needs nothing more than time to be a corpse. Let's just harvest the organs now, eh?

THe 'child' can't speak for itself, because it is just a lump of cells with no brain, no desires, no agenda.

ANd if it did have desires and an agenda, WHO ARE YOU to decide what those are?
I believe a desire to live would come far above a desire to not live, so I think I'm on to a safe bet here.

I believe that every life comes into being for a purpose. I also believe that some of those lives' purposes can be fulfilled by simply entering this world as an embryo and then leaving. We don't know the big picture, so we can't say what is going to turn out to be a good thing and which will turn out badly.
do you save a man from drowning? what if that man turns out to be another serial killer? what if that man really WANTS to die, and you decide he shouldnt. You don't know if that lump of cells wants to live or not, nor what kind of wonderful/horrible life it will lead should it be born. You are making a value judgement with no proof there is any value in the embryo being destroyed.
Are you seriously suggesting that abortion is ok because 'we don't know how the child will turn out?' We don't know how any child will turn out; they might all be murderers, so why not just drop the risk and terminate them all? How can you possibly decide whether or not a child is of 'value' before it is given the chance to prove its worth?

Your argument from potential is not objective - it isn't even logical. If something will become something else, it is not yet that something else.
It is entirely logical. I have argued that life begins at the biological beginning, when there is no further need for genetic input. Any other point is arbitrary; "life begins there...no, there...oh, ok, there."

A terminally ill patient is dead because it needs nothing more than time to be a corpse. Let's just harvest the organs now, eh?
We all need nothing more than time to be a corpse. This isn't a valid reason to make the child a premature corpse.

We all need nothing more than time to be a corpse. This isn't a valid reason to make the child a premature corpse.

Why not? You've stated yourself when the only remaining factor is time, it's the same. Does it have to be a patient with nine or less months to live before we harvest?

Why not? You've stated yourself when the only remaining factor is time, it's the same. Does it have to be a patient with nine or less months to live before we harvest?
I am arguing in favour of life; you are making an analogy in favour of death. I do not believe the two are in any way connected.

How is it logical to say 'we let a baby live for nine months therefore we should kill someone who is going to die?'

I am arguing in favour of life; you are making an analogy in favour of death. I do not believe the two are in any way connected.

Why not? beggining of life, end of life. You say it begins when nothing is left but time to make the difference:
I do believe that when everything is in place except time then yes, this is the difference. Any other point is subjective, and depends entirely on what you believe 'life' to be. Everything but time is a constant, and an objective point to place the start of life.
Being consistent, it should end when nothing is left but time to make the difference, but that doesn't seem to make sense, does it? I don't see why....I mean...I used the same logic you did...unless something was wrong with that logic...

How is it logical to say 'we let a baby live for nine months therefore we should kill someone who is going to die?'

Saying "We can kill someone who is going to die if everything stays this way" is just as logical as "We must keep something that is going to be alive if everything stays this way". It's all arguement from potential.


P.S. Because when there is nothing but time left then it is no longer 'potential;' it is growing in the same way we all did, and requires no further changes to become a person.

Because when there is nothing but time left then it is no longer 'potential;' it is [dieing] in the same way we all [will], and requires no further changes to become a [cadaver].

...
Because when there is nothing but time left then it is no longer 'potential;' it is [dieing] in the same way we all [will], and requires no further changes to become a [cadaver]
...
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot make the leap of logic from 'I do not believe an unborn child should be killed' to 'I believe people who are dying should be killed.' I have been nothing but consistent throughout this thread; I am in favour of giving a child the chance to live. I am not in the business of taking life away unnecessarily.

To argue that I am in favour of death because I say "give life a chance" is some of the most bizarre and twisted logic I have ever heard.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot make the leap of logic from 'I do not believe an unborn child should be killed' to 'I believe people who are dying should be killed.' I have been nothing but consistent throughout this thread; I am in favour of giving a child the chance to live. I am not in the business of taking life away unnecessarily.

To argue that I am in favour of death because I say "give life a chance" is some of the most bizarre and twisted logic I have ever heard.

I'm talking about you're arguement from potential.
Embryo + Time = Person
Therefore, Embryo = Person
^^^ This is what you've said repeatedly, but apply that logic in another situation...

Terminally Ill Person + Time = Corpse
Therfore, Terminally Ill Person = Corpse

Can we harvest the organs of terminally ill people?

It is entirely logical. I have argued that life begins at the biological beginning, when there is no further need for genetic input. Any other point is arbitrary; "life begins there...no, there...oh, ok, there."

Biology doesn't and never has defined life as "no further need for genetic input," thus it is pretty arbitrary. Thus, you aren't really talking about the "biological beginning," but a point that you have arbitrarily chosen.

It isn't at all arbitrary to use the definition of life developed completely outside of this debate - which would place the beginning of life at the point at which the fetus has developed a rudimentary nervous system and can sense and respond to stimuli as an entity.

It isn't at all arbitrary to note that we define death in human beings as total loss of function of the brain, and then to state that we will define life as beginning of that function.

These are two non-arbitrary and completely supportable time points. Yours, on the other hand, requires using a definition that includes my heart and each and every one of its cells as a human life, in and of itself.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot make the leap of logic from 'I do not believe an unborn child should be killed' to 'I believe people who are dying should be killed.' I have been nothing but consistent throughout this thread; I am in favour of giving a child the chance to live. I am not in the business of taking life away unnecessarily.

To argue that I am in favour of death because I say "give life a chance" is some of the most bizarre and twisted logic I have ever heard.

The logic is exactly the same - you just don't want to see it. To say, "All this entity needs is time to become a living human being, therefore it is now a human being," is exactly the same logic as saying, "All this entity needs is time to become a corpse, therefore it is now a corpse."

I'm talking about you're arguement from potential.
Embryo + Time = Person
Therefore, Embryo = Person
^^^ This is what you've said repeatedly, but apply that logic in another situation...

Terminally Ill Person + Time = Corpse
Therfore, Terminally Ill Person = Corpse

Can we harvest the organs of terminally ill people?
You've taken my argument and applied it in a totally inappropriate way. An argument supporting life is never going to transfer onto an argument supporting death.

2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you keep saying it will.

You've taken my argument and applied it in a totally inappropriate way.

Your argument is based in a logical process. If that logical process is indeed correct, it can be applied in other instance, such as the one used.

An argument supporting life is never going to transfer onto an argument supporting death.

It is if it is an argument from potential, as yours is. By your argument, we are all dead. All children are adults. All adults are senior citizens. All seeds are plants. All caterpillars are butterflies. All larvae are adults. All eggs are hatched. And so on....

2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you keep saying it will.

No, 2+2=4. Using that same logical process, I can find that 3+3=6. This is analogous to the way your argument works. You essentially say, "X has the potential to become Y - it requires no further input. Therefore, X is Y." I can plug anything in for X, find a Y that it might become, and use that argument.

You've taken my argument and applied it in a totally inappropriate way. An argument supporting life is never going to transfer onto an argument supporting death.

2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you keep saying it will.

...
Death and life are interconnected, maybe you'd care to define death? SOmething along the lines of "the end of life" yes? What are we talking about here exactly? when something becomes a life, I think? The beggining of life, perhaps? Hmmm....beggining of something....end of that exact same something...

Here what's going on, you say 2+2=5, I show you how, by that logic, 4+4=10. You say your arguement can't say 4+4=10, because that's wrong and 2+2=5 is right. However, both statments are wrong, because the logic used to aquire them is flawed. Your logic.

It is if it is an argument from potential, as yours is. By your argument, we are all dead. All children are adults. All adults are senior citizens. All seeds are plants. All caterpillars are butterflies. All larvae are adults. All eggs are hatched. And so on....


All ice cream cones are melted...(or eaten, I guess *shrug*)

Your argument is based in a logical process. If that logical process is indeed correct, it can be applied in other instance, such as the one used.

It is if it is an argument from potential, as yours is. By your argument, we are all dead. All children are adults. All adults are senior citizens. All seeds are plants. All caterpillars are butterflies. All larvae are adults. All eggs are hatched. And so on....

No, 2+2=4. Using that same logical process, I can find that 3+3=6. This is analogous to the way your argument works. You essentially say, "X has the potential to become Y - it requires no further input. Therefore, X is Y." I can plug anything in for X, find a Y that it might become, and use that argument.
I did not deny that we will die; I stated that this is not a reason to kill something.

I have not argued that a growing child is 'potential;' quite the opposite. I have said that all it requires is time to become life. Now, you have taken this and said 'all we need is time to die. Therefore, it is fine to kill someone now.'

This is absurd. My X = Y means life. I am arguing in defence of life. Your X = Y means death.

In many ways, the analogy is far better suited to a pro-abortion stance, since with abortion all roads lead to death. If we can kill the baby because it is only 'potential,' then yes, why not the terminally ill?

You are trying to fit the circle through the square hole and, try as you might to push it through, it just won't go.

I did not deny that we will die; I stated that this is not a reason to kill something.

I have not argued that a growing child is 'potential;' quite the opposite. I have said that all it requires is time to become life. Now, you have taken this and said 'all we need is time to die. Therefore, it is fine to kill someone now.'

This is absurd. My X = Y means life. I am arguing in defence of life. Your X = Y means death.

In many ways, the analogy is far better suited to a pro-abortion stance, since with abortion all roads lead to death. If we can kill the baby because it is only 'potential,' then yes, why not the terminally ill?

You are trying to fit the circle through the square hole and, try as you might to push it through, it just won't go.

It is by no means absurd, it doesn't matter if it's life, death, or the honor of curly fries, the logic used is:
"X has the potential to become Y - it requires no further input. Therefore, X is Y."
Put something in for X, put something in for Y. Want me to use an analogy that makes you look slightly less mistaken?

Fine, you don't like should, technically the argument proves we could harvest the organs of the terminally ill, we don't kill anyone, we've proven them to be dead, just as you've proven an embryo to be alive

Life, Death, your arguement supports both, it's flawed. Regardless of how "good" the thing you're arguing for is.

I did not deny that we will die; I stated that this is not a reason to kill something.

But, by your argument, we are all corpses, because we all have all the requirements to die.

I have not argued that a growing child is 'potential;' quite the opposite. I have said that all it requires is time to become life.

Those two statements are logically equivalent. If all it needs is time to become life, then an embryo (which is not, by any medical or biological definition, a child) is potential life and not actual life.

Your statement is like saying, I never said 2+4=8, I just said that if you add 2 and 4, you get 8.

Now, you have taken this and said 'all we need is time to die. Therefore, it is fine to kill someone now.'

Can you kill something that is already dead?

This is absurd. My X = Y means life. I am arguing in defence of life. Your X = Y means death.

Irrelevant. It is your logical process that we are discussing. It doesn't matter what the results of the process are - it is the process itself that is being examined. I could just as well say, your x=y was 2+2=4. My x=y was 4+4=8. I am arguing in defence of 8.

In many ways, the analogy is far better suited to a pro-abortion stance, since with abortion all roads lead to death. If we can kill the baby because it is only 'potential,' then yes, why not the terminally ill?

Because the terminally ill are not potential. They are actual life. And, as a general rule, we don't take actual lives. However, something that will potentially be life is not yet life. Therefore, we cannot "kill" it, as you can only kill that which is alive in the first place.

Want me to use an analogy that makes you look slightly less mistaken?

I'm ever so sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I have watched these abortion debates on here before. There is usually a lone voice who stands up for what they believe in, and they are beaten back, harassed and ridiculed until they just through their hands up and say "fine, screw the lot of you." They go, everyone on this forum pats themselves on the back and thinks "well, we sure showed them, aren't we the enlightened lot?"

I have answered every single claim put to me today on this thread in a consistent, calm and rational manner. I have not brought morality, subjectivity or a rationale of "I'm right because I say I am" into the debate. My argument has been based from the start on the simple principle that while there are certain cases in which abortion may be said to be justified, a lifestyle choice is not one of these reasons.

I have lay down the arguments in which I believe. I have defended them and answered any criticisms of them. If you disagree with me that is fine; many people do, and many people always will. I cannot continue to debate, however, if you are simply going to attack me with an argument that makes no sense. I am saying 'life = life.' You are trying to make out as if I am saying 'life = life therefore life = death.' No matter how many times you try to claim that this is 'logical,' it simply is not. You are saying that X = Y, but the fact is you have already decided what Y is and are trying to make X fit.

You are welcome to continue patting yourselves on the back and thinking what an enlightened lot you are, but, I'm very sorry, it is not a label I would attach.

I am confident that any other attacks you would like to make on my position have already been answered in this thread many, many times.

*snip*

What's left to do when the tactic comes down to being backed into a corner, then picking out one unrelated sentence and ignoring all else? We show how you're arguement is flawed, you either don't understand or are just sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA" because you can't consider being wrong. But wait, you're defending life. :rolleyes:

I have not brought morality, subjectivity or a rationale of "I'm right because I say I am" into the debate.
Noooo, course not. you're right because your defending "life"

I have lay down the arguments in which I believe. I have defended them and answered any criticisms of them. If you disagree with me that is fine; many people do, and many people always will. I cannot continue to debate, however, if you are simply going to attack me with an argument that makes no sense.

I've displayed the flaws in the argument, you've done no defense, it's just "I'm say life, you guys say death"

I am saying 'life = life.' You are trying to make out as if I am saying 'life = life therefore life = death.' No matter how many times you try to claim that this is 'logical,' it simply is not. You are saying that X = Y, but the fact is you have already decided what Y is and are trying to make X fit.

You're saying Pre-life=life, Were saying Pre-death=death, both are wrong, because the logic is flawed.

u are welcome to continue patting yourselves on the back and thinking what an enlightened lot you are, but, I'm very sorry, it is not a label I would attach.

Well of course not After all, you're defending life, you're clearly a beacon of wisdom.


I am confident that any other attacks you would like to make on my position have already been answered in this thread many, many times.
No....no they haven't. they've been ignored because:
I am arguing in defence of life. Your X = Y means death.

What's left to do when the tactic comes down to being backed into a corner, then picking out one unrelated sentence and ignoring all else? We show how you're arguement is flawed, you either don't understand or are just sticking your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA" because you can't consider being wrong. But wait, you're defending life. :rolleyes:
Actually, you have not shown my argument to be flawed. You have convinced yourself that your analogy works. I have stated not only why I believe it to be wrong, but why I believe it to be irrelevant. I'm afraid I am not the one going 'la la la la,' as I have answered every single point with consistency.

It is not 'being backed into a corner' to realise you are never going to agree with someone. I have not been 'backed into a corner,' rather I am being repeatedly beaten by a feather as the person holds it shouts "it's hurting you because I refuse to accept it's not a sword!"

It is late, I have had a long day, we are never going to agree, so I am going to bed rather than spend all night locked in a circle where neither of us is ever going to accept the others point. I'm sure you will jump at the chance of the last word with glee, as it leaves you able to say "look! He said this, this and this! Isn't he an idiot?!" but I'm afraid there's not much I can do about that.

I have answered every single claim put to me today on this thread in a consistent, calm and rational manner.

You have yet to address the problem with your "logic" brought forth by several people. Thus, to say that you have "answered every single claim put to you...." is rather dishonest.

I have not brought morality, subjectivity or a rationale of "I'm right because I say I am" into the debate. My argument has been based from the start on the simple principle that while there are certain cases in which abortion may be said to be justified, a lifestyle choice is not one of these reasons.

Actually, your argument hasn't in any way even sort of kind of relied upon that premise. In fact, were your argument true, then no reason could really justify abortion.

I have lay down the arguments in which I believe. I have defended them and answered any criticisms of them.

That is laughable.

If you disagree with me that is fine; many people do, and many people always will. I cannot continue to debate, however, if you are simply going to attack me with an argument that makes no sense.

We are simply using your exact same argument. If it "makes no sense," then perhaps you should stop using it.

I am saying 'life = life.' You are trying to make out as if I am saying 'life = life therefore life = death.'

Wrong. You are saying, "Having everything you need to develop into life = life." By that same token, one could argue that "having everything you need to die = death."

Your "consistency" has wobbled from stating that the embryo can develop into life with "no further genetic input" to stating that it already is life. You have consistently stated, "I'm not calling it potential, I'm just saying that it has what it needs to become life." In other words, you have consistently stated, "I'm not calling it potential, I'm just calling it potential." And finally, you fail to recognize your own argument when it is used in another setting. You have consistently stated that your own argument makes no sense.

No matter how many times you try to claim that this is 'logical,' it simply is not.

Methinks you need to look up logic.

You are saying that X = Y, but the fact is you have already decided what Y is and are trying to make X fit.

Hardly. For instance, I can take the biological definition of life and apply it to something to see if it fits. An embryo does not. A fetus, after the development of a rudimentary nervous system, does. It has nothing to do with deciding what they are ahead of time - that's simply the way it turns out.

I can also use the medical definition of human life, which requires a working brain. Thus, I could say that a fetus is not a human life until it has a working brain. That isn't a matter of deciding it ahead of time, but is instead a matter of using an established definition.

You, on the other hand, decided that an embryo is a human person. Because of that, you set your requirement at fertilization. Maybe you should look up "projecting" while you're hitting the books.

You are welcome to continue patting yourselves on the back and thinking what an enlightened lot you are, but, I'm very sorry, it is not a label I would attach.

I've never claimed to be "enlightened." But I don't stand by and watch people make fallacious biological arguments either.

I am confident that any other attacks you would like to make on my position have already been answered in this thread many, many times.

Nothing I have yet pointed out has been answered by anything more than, "I don't understand," or sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "NANANANANANANANANANANA"

Actually, you have not shown my argument to be flawed. You have convinced yourself that your analogy works.

It isn't an analogy. It is a use of the exact same logical process you are espousing. If you would like to state that your logical process is flawed or "makes no sense," by all means, go ahead.

I have stated not only why I believe it to be wrong, but why I believe it to be irrelevant. I'm afraid I am not the one going 'la la la la,' as I have answered every single point with consistency.

It isn't very consistent to say, "It will become life." "It is life." And to switch between the two every few posts.

Meanwhile, you "believing it to be wrong," is like believing "2+2=4" to be wrong. Logic has nothing to do with your belief system.

It is not 'being backed into a corner' to realise you are never going to agree with someone. I have not been 'backed into a corner,' rather I am being repeatedly beaten by a feather as the person holds it shouts "it's hurting you because I refuse to accept it's not a sword!"

It isn't a matter of agreement, but is instead a matter of logic. You are using a flawed logical process, which you seek to apply in some special case scenario without backing up its special case status with anything more than, "LIFELIFELIFELIFELIFE"

It is late, I have had a long day, we are never going to agree, so I am going to bed rather than spend all night locked in a circle where neither of us is ever going to accept the others point.

No one is asking you to agree. We're simply asking for logic.

...
I'm not sure how anyone can debate with someone who can't be bothered to read more than the last two pages of a thread.

I'm not sure how any one can debate with someone who can't be bothered to read more than the last two pages of a thread.

I've read the entire thread my dear - replied to some of the first posts in it. Good to know that you can't answer any of my points though.

Actually, you have not shown my argument to be flawed. You have convinced yourself that your analogy works. I have stated not only why I believe it to be wrong, but why I believe it to be irrelevant. I'm afraid I am not the one going 'la la la la,' as I have answered every single point with consistency.

It is not 'being backed into a corner' to realise you are never going to agree with someone. I have not been 'backed into a corner,' rather I am being repeatedly beaten by a feather as the person holds it shouts "it's hurting you because I refuse to accept it's not a sword!"

It is late, I have had a long day, we are never going to agree, so I am going to bed rather than spend all night locked in a circle where neither of us is ever going to accept the others point.

The analogy, regardless of the words around it, using precisely the same logic, "X + Time = Y, therefore X = Y" Life, death, nachos, doesn't matter.

Maybe were never going to agree because you can't recognize a logical flaw? If were going into weapons, how about you're trying yto hit me with a broken sword, and I point that out, showing you a stick broken in the exact same way?

I'm not circling here, your argument is flaw, you don't understand that. That's were we've been for three pages, there is no circle, you've just stopped because you going any farther means you've been mistaken.

Which, obviously, you can't be...you know, defending life and all. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how anyone can debate with someone who can't be bothered to read more than the last two pages of a thread.

This time you don't even pick a sentence, you just dismiss the whole thing.