NationStates Jolt Archive

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

Finally a CriNazi shows up! Time to watch some good old fashioned Liberal/Right-Wing fighting!

*makes popcorn, and sets up deckchair*

So then women don't have to go through the more life defining decision of getting an abortion. Birth control is there so women and men don't have to worry about having children until they are ready to do so.

Life doesn't begin at conception, it begins at erection.

So then women don't have to go through the more life defining decision of getting an abortion. Birth control is there so women and men don't have to worry about having children until they are ready to do so.
^^ This. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.

:confused:I really really dont understand this quote. Could you explain ti before I refute it? :confused:

So then women don't have to go through the more life defining decision of getting an abortion. Birth control is there so women and men don't have to worry about having children until they are ready to do so.

But that does not really answer my question.

The quote is more against abortion then birth control. If you believe in abortion then you believe that life does not begin at conception, right?

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.

I don't know if you've ever got an abortion, but it's a hell of a lot more hassle and expense than putting on a condom.

But that does not really answer my question.

The quote is more against abotion then birth control. If you believe in abortion then you believe that life does not begin at conception, right?
The quote is about contraception/birth control. It says so right in the quote. It says nothing about abortion.

If you have a question about abortion, why don't you post something about abortion?

EDIT: I see your OP edit, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote is about birth control. Please add an additional edit giving us a clear abortion topic, thanks.

The quote is about contraception/birth control. It says so right in the quote. It says nothing about abortion.

If you have a question about abortion, why don't you post something about abortion?

The quote was taken out of an argument against abortion. If I could find the entire speech I would post it, but I can not find it.

The quote was taken out of an argument against abortion. If I could find the entire speech I would post it, but I can not find it.

Well, here's an idea: Why don't you come up with a topic question of your own?

But that does not really answer my question.

The quote is more against abortion then birth control. If you believe in abortion then you believe that life does not begin at conception, right?

Right. I believe life begins when the heart begins to beat.

Because an abortion is a nasty surgical procedure, and a birth control pill is very easy to take, perhaps?

...I am deeply confused by this thread, but I'll answer the question: Why use birth control? Because you don't want to give birth.

Boy, that was a tough one.

The quote is about contraception/birth control. It says so right in the quote. It says nothing about abortion.

I believe the logic here is that people use contraception instead of abortion for birth control because they secretly deep down really believe that life begins at conception, and thus all pro-life activists who use conception are nasty smelly hypocrites who can't be trusted to make a good cup of tea, never mind talk about whether abortion is right or wrong.

Well, here's an idea: Why don't you come up with a topic question of your own?

Here is a thought, how come people can not use any insight to try to figure out something they have heard and find out others beliefs?

<snip>

If you believe in abortion then you believe that life does not begin at conception, right?
In regard to this question (which I'll treat as the OP while I await edits):

Answer = No, that is not right.

People who are pro-choice hold lots of different views about the point at which life begins. My personal view is that the point at which life begins is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

Life neither begins at conception nor ends at death; it is merely a link in the chain fence. Life is energy and thus can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed. After all, when we die, we become food for other life forms which are food for others. We're just one link in this great chain.

Now that I'm done being philosophical; life beings when the foetus, regardless of what type of species it is, when it intakes its first breath of "air" (air in quotations as aquatic life forms don't breath the same air as those on land).

To put it another way, does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched? Do they count as part of his livestock or does he count them once they are hatched?

Here is a thought, how come people can not use any insight to try to figure out something they have heard and find out others beliefs?
We read your OP, saw a quote about birth control, and we thought you were asking our views on birth control viz the beginning of life. What's not reasonable about that?

Now if you really wanted to talk about abortion, you should have given us a clue.

*gets on his knees to pray*

"Holy virgin Mary you that conceive without sin allow me to sin without conceive"

I'm pro-choice, and TBH I do believe life begins at conception.

However, I don't have problems with post-birth abortion in some cases (i.e. birth defects) either.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.

Because abortion is painful mentally and physically. Also expensive (if you live in the states). but how exactly does life begin at conception exactly. And where would you actually place conception? When sperm meets egg? the first (fast block) the second block(slow)? At the first cell division? I mean really there is very little difference between a human and a bacteria at that point so . . .why conception?

I believe the logic here is that people use contraception instead of abortion for birth control because they secretly deep down really believe that life begins at conception, and thus all pro-life activists who use conception are nasty smelly hypocrites who can't be trusted to make a good cup of tea, never mind talk about whether abortion is right or wrong.

That's a good attempt, but I think the lack of substance in the OP is forcing you to read too much into it. (Good stuff though. :D)

I think the OP actually meant to post something like the question he posted later to Londim:

"If you believe in abortion then you don't think life begins at conception, right?" (paraphrased)

His real question apparently has nothing to do with birth control.

Because of the analogy to microbes given just now, I think it's silly to say, "at conception".

But, for the purposes of abortion, it's my personal belief that life begins at the point where, if the fetus is removed surgically from the uterus, that the fetus can be kept alive and matured by medical science.

That is, if it's technically feasible to keep a fetus alive when it's removed, and it didn't come out dead, then the doctors are obligated to keep it alive.

The mother doesn't have to keep it. I'm fine with that (in fact, I believe that anyone who doesn't want children should never be allowed to have them).

Technology is drawing that line closer and closer these days.

I'm even OK with this law:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/277717/36/

Saturday, 23 August 2008
Law lets parents abandon children
Jean Ortiz - The Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. -- Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.

We read your OP, saw a quote about birth control, and we thought you were asking our views on birth control viz the beginning of life. What's not reasonable about that?

Now if you really wanted to talk about abortion, you should have given us a clue.

I understand about not mentioning the abortion part, that was confusing since it was not mentioned. My bad.

Trying to have people read too much into something can cause havoc for both parties.

Because of the analogy to microbes given just now, I think it's silly to say, "at conception".

But, for the purposes of abortion, it's my personal belief that life begins at the point where, if the fetus is removed surgically from the uterus, that the fetus can be kept alive and matured by medical science.

That is, if it's technically feasible to keep a fetus alive when it's removed, and it didn't come out dead, then the doctors are obligated to keep it alive.

The mother doesn't have to keep it. I'm fine with that (in fact, I believe that anyone who doesn't want children should never be allowed to have them).

Technology is drawing that line closer and closer these days.

I'm even OK with this law:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/277717/36/

I can agree with that

If people believe in anti-venoms then why do they try to avoid being bitten by rattle-snakes? :confused:

Saying abortion is immoral is correct.

why?

Because Morality is not absolute, therefore anything can be moral or immoral.

Forcing your view of morality down anothers throat is wrong.

<snip>

I'm even OK with this law:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/277717/36/
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Law lets parents abandon children
Jean Ortiz - The Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. -- Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.
Isn't a dangerous game to "abandon" people who could potentially sue you for something?

To put it another way, does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched? Do they count as part of his livestock or does he count them once they are hatched?

If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?

I understand about not mentioning the abortion part, that was confusing since it was not mentioned. My bad.

Trying to have people read too much into something can cause havoc for both parties.
Yes. Remember, we do not live inside your head. We do not see your thoughts.

If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?

When he sells those chickens and makes a profit.

Do not argue this with a third generation farmboy.

Isn't a dangerous game to "abandon" people who could potentially sue you for something?

That's not the state's problem.

The state has an interest in saving children from abuse - so if an abusive parent finds it easier to abandon a child, or a mother wants to abandon a baby she should have aborted earlier, then the state will take care of the child.

As for any later lawsuit, that's not the state's problem.

Yes. Remember, we do not live inside your head. We do not see your thoughts.

Yeah I know, my thoughts tend to be drawn out and come to a conclusion that I forget to explain when it comes time. Just ask my wife. :D

If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?
Okay, here's your problem right here: Not all of those eggs will produce a live chicken. Some of them won't hatch at all.

The farmer will know if he's successful by waiting and seeing how many of his eggs hatch. Not by predicting how many he hopes will hatch.

And if he's borrowing money against his chicken flock, then he'd damn well better not count the chickens that don't exist yet, because that would be fraud.

When he sells those chickens and makes a profit.

Do not argue this with a third generation farmboy.

Another farm boy? Good stuff!!

This is a philosophical question on when a farmer should count his chickens, please don't take it out of context.

If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?

If he counts them before they are hatched but only a few hatch and not all, he has jumped the gun. He will know he is successful when the eggs hatch. Only when he can see the chicks will he know his hens are profitable.

As for foetuses; just because an egg is fertilised doesn't mean it's a baby. Most fertilised eggs never get implanted. The woman's body expels the egg. Even if the egg is implanted, the body could expel it before it comes to term.

Okay, here's your problem right here: Not all of those eggs will produce a live chicken. Some of them won't hatch at all.

The farmer will know if he's successful by waiting and seeing how many of his eggs hatch. Not by predicting how many he hopes will hatch.

And if he's borrowing money against his chicken flock, then he'd damn well better not count the chickens that don't exist yet, because that would be fraud.

Hence, don't count your chickens until they hatch.

Because of the analogy to microbes given just now, I think it's silly to say, "at conception".

But, for the purposes of abortion, it's my personal belief that life begins at the point where, if the fetus is removed surgically from the uterus, that the fetus can be kept alive and matured by medical science.

That is, if it's technically feasible to keep a fetus alive when it's removed, and it didn't come out dead, then the doctors are obligated to keep it alive.

The mother doesn't have to keep it. I'm fine with that (in fact, I believe that anyone who doesn't want children should never be allowed to have them).

Technology is drawing that line closer and closer these days.

I'm even OK with this law:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/277717/36/

Wow, you and I have nearly the sames views on abortion. I knew you couldn't be all that bad. Once the fetus is viable it would be wrong to abort it. This is just my opinion. I do not wish to legislate my opinion and believe abortion should be legal to any woman who chooses to do so. I have never told my wife or lover to have an abortion. I don't know if I ever really could. I say that it the child were to be genetically F'd I would want to have it aborted. I'll have to wait until I am ever put in that position. I do not personally agree with abortions, but I do not think it should be made illegal. How is that for the OP?

That's not the state's problem.

The state has an interest in saving children from abuse - so if an abusive parent finds it easier to abandon a child, or a mother wants to abandon a baby she should have aborted earlier, then the state will take care of the child.

As for any later lawsuit, that's not the state's problem.
I didn't think it would be the state's problem. I was just wondering about what kind of idiot parents would "abandon" a teenager who could, with the aid of the state's child protective services, possibly get an attorney to sue the parents for denial of various services or something a decent tort lawyer could knock together. In fact, I'd just love to see that happen.

Okay, here's your problem right here: Not all of those eggs will produce a live chicken. Some of them won't hatch at all.

The farmer will know if he's successful by waiting and seeing how many of his eggs hatch. Not by predicting how many he hopes will hatch.

And if he's borrowing money against his chicken flock, then he'd damn well better not count the chickens that don't exist yet, because that would be fraud.

If a farmer does not take into stock how many have hatched againt those that have not, how will he ever improve as a farmer?

If he counts them before they are hatched but only a few hatch and not all, he has jumped the gun. He will know he is successful when the eggs hatch. Only when he can see the chicks will he know his hens are profitable.

As for foetuses; just because an egg is fertilised doesn't mean it's a baby. Most fertilised eggs never get implanted. The woman's body expels the egg. Even if the egg is implanted, the body could expel it before it comes to term.

Then its quite clear were we reach following that logic.

Menstruation should be a crime equivalent with murder!!!!!:mp5::mp5::mp5:

DEATH PENALTY FOR ANYONE WHO MENSTRUATES!!!

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


To prevent giving birth. Duh.

You didn't put much thought into this, did you?

Saying abortion is immoral is correct.

why?

Because Morality is not absolute, therefore anything can be moral or immoral.

Forcing your view of morality down anothers throat is wrong.

right so saying abortion is moral is also correct

If a farmer does not take into stock how many have hatched againt those that have not, how will he ever improve as a farmer?

yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?

That's not the state's problem.

The state has an interest in saving children from abuse - so if an abusive parent finds it easier to abandon a child, or a mother wants to abandon a baby she should have aborted earlier, then the state will take care of the child.

As for any later lawsuit, that's not the state's problem.

I find myself agreeing with you yet again. *looks outside for flying pigs*

So, is it time I trot out Bob, the Janitor, yet again?

If a farmer does not take into stock how many have hatched againt those that have not, how will he ever improve as a farmer?
Huh? What are you talking about?

yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?

there is no chicken, there is only potential for the chicken to have existed!

Huh? What are you talking about?

because apparently since a farmer will take stock in eggs not yet hatched in determining overall assets, an embryo is a human being.

Or...something. The logic train derailed somewhere around "chicken"

I find myself agreeing with you yet again. *looks outside for flying pigs*

Kinda feeling the same way. . .me . . .agreeing. . . with hotwife???? hmmmmmmm

yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?

To count them as chickens, only when he counts them as chickens does he know where to improve if they fail to hatch.

If they are potential chickens then he would not bother to count them, and if none hatch he would fail as a farmer.

right so saying abortion is moral is also correct

Yes. That is correct. Therefore anything anyone says or does about anything is also correct in their own morality, make a moral arguement stupid.

I find the logic in the OP's quote to be flawed. Birth control is not a moral choice, it is an economic one. A birth will result in someone dependant on me for support: IF I am unable to support a child, and IF I engage in sex, THEN I should use birth control. Abortion IS a form of birth control, just an expensive and extreme form. As an analogy, I could prevent a root canal by brushing my teeth and using dental hygiene, or I could have my teeth extracted and replaced with dentures. Both accomplish the goal, one is simply easier and more sensible.

because apparently since a farmer will take stock in eggs not yet hatched in determining overall assets, an embryo is a human being.

Or...something. The logic train derailed somewhere around "chicken"

I am getting the same feeling. the "chicken" logic is getting hairy, or rather feathery. :p BOO!!!!

To count them as chickens, only he counts them as chickens does he know where to improve if they fail to hatch.

If they are potential chickens then he would not bother to count them, and if none hatch he would fail as a farmer.

you know, I recognize what you say as words, but I'll be damned if I have any idea what they mean in this particular configuration.

yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?
He counts them as what they are -- eggs.

He sells them to Agrimark or Conagra. They end up in McMuffin sandwiches. Farmer profits.

Or he keeps some to hatch, and IF enough of them hatch, he sells them to Tyson, and they end up McNuggets. Farmer profits again BUT ONLY IF ENOUGH HATCH.

Because of that big IF, the actual eggs of today are worth more than the potential chickens of tomorrow.

Yes. That is correct. Therefore anything anyone says or does about anything is also correct in their own morality, make a moral arguement stupid.

agreed. . . and now I'm agreeing with bineria . . .. this is not good. . .. *Looks out window for the end of the world*

the problem is, life begins before conception...the question is when does the baby become human life...ie self-aware, with as I would say, a soul. and that we will never know. lots of things are alive but not human. blades of grass, sperm...skin cells. we don't need to protect those...but humans need protection, and animals too, I would say they don't have souls, but I say they are self-aware and as such deserve protection.

so what do I say should be done about abortion? I think to be safe 3rd trimester abortions should be outlawed unless medically necessary as determined by 2 doctors.

well I think a lot of the problem would obviously be solved if people waited till marriage to have sex...but that is my personal opinion, and what I plan on doing and I'm not going to force it on anyone else.

It doesn't matter when life begins; no one has the right to commandeer someone else's body against her will. And by no one, I mean, of course, babies.

you know, I recognize what you say as words, but I'll be damned if I have any idea what they mean in this particular configuration.

Like I said it is getting confusing. Maybe I will try to explain, although I have a feelign it would be lengthy.

the problem is, life begins before conception...the question is when does the baby become human life...ie self-aware, with as I would say, a soul. and that we will never know. lots of things are alive but not human. blades of grass, sperm...skin cells. we don't need to protect those...but humans need protection, and animals too, I would say they don't have souls, but I say they are self-aware and as such deserve protection.

Therein lies the rub. An embry is most certainly alive. It meets the characteristics of biological life. But so does the egg. So does the sperm. So if we mean life to mean ANY life, then life does not begin at conception, it began far before that, with the creation of the sperm and egg, separate living things.

If we mean HUMAN life begins at conception, then this true is false, as a small bundle of cells is in no way human. Any more so than a hair follicle is.

you know, I recognize what you say as words, but I'll be damned if I have any idea what they mean in this particular configuration.
It's like he used a random word generator.

agreed. . . and now I'm agreeing with bineria . . .. this is not good. . .. *Looks out window for the end of the world*
Soldnerism brings the world together.

He counts them as what they are -- eggs.

He sells them to Agrimark or Conagra. They end up in McMuffin sandwiches. Farmer profits.

Or he keeps some to hatch, and IF enough of them hatch, he sells them to Tyson, and they end up McNuggets. Farmer profits again BUT ONLY IF ENOUGH HATCH.

Because of that big IF, the actual eggs of today are worth more than the potential chickens of tomorrow.

I think I agree with this, but I am confused on this "chicken logic".

Like I said it is getting confusing. Maybe I will try to explain, although I have a feelign it would be lengthy.

Go ahead and it explain. It will save all of us a headache.

the problem is, life begins before conception...the question is when does the baby become human life...ie self-aware, with as I would say, a soul. and that we will never know. lots of things are alive but not human. blades of grass, sperm...skin cells. we don't need to protect those...but humans need protection, and animals too, I would say they don't have souls, but I say they are self-aware and as such deserve protection.

so what do I say should be done about abortion? I think to be safe 3rd trimester abortions should be outlawed unless medically necessary as determined by 2 doctors.

well I think a lot of the problem would obviously be solved if people waited till marriage to have sex...but that is my personal opinion, and what I plan on doing and I'm not going to force it on anyone else.
Actually Life begins BEFORE conception. Both sperm and egg are live haploid cells.

the problem is, life begins before conception...the question is when does the baby become human life...ie self-aware, with as I would say, a soul. and that we will never know. lots of things are alive but not human. blades of grass, sperm...skin cells. we don't need to protect those...but humans need protection, and animals too, I would say they don't have souls, but I say they are self-aware and as such deserve protection.

so what do I say should be done about abortion? I think to be safe 3rd trimester abortions should be outlawed unless medically necessary as determined by 2 doctors.

well I think a lot of the problem would obviously be solved if people waited till marriage to have sex...but that is my personal opinion, and what I plan on doing and I'm not going to force it on anyone else.
The bolded part is already true.

So...the world is perfect then! Yay! Next issue.

Soldnerism brings the world together.

lol good call

Go ahead and it explain. It will save all of us a headache.

too late

so an embryo becomes a fetus at 9 weeks, or 2/9ths of the way in roughly...so I think that around the 2nd trimester there should be regulations...IDK its just such a morally complicated issue with slippery slopes in both directions...

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

Until several months into the pregnancy, the living organism is not sentient. Therefore it is technically no different than a tumor or cancer cell. How many physicians would argue that you should wait until it's fully developed to take care of it?

I think I agree with this, but I am confused on this "chicken logic".
Chicken logic is simple:

DO NOT DEAL IN POTENTIALS.

Deal only in what IS, not what might be someday.

Period.

too late

As I do not yet have a headache I am clearly superior to you! :p

so an embryo becomes a fetus at 9 weeks, or 2/9ths of the way in roughly...so I think that around the 2nd trimester there should be regulations...IDK its just such a morally complicated issue with slippery slopes in both directions...
There already are regulations in the 2nd trimester! Yippee! Life just keeps getting better as problem after problem is whisked off our hands.

Chicken logic is simple:

DO NOT DEAL IN POTENTIALS.

Deal only in what IS, not what might be someday.

Period.

but then what can schrodinger's cat eat????

It's just such a morally complicated issue with slippery slopes in both directions...

I don't think that this is the case. It's quite a simple issue if you allow that no one has the right to life at the expense of another person: that since the mother is the one whose body is being contested, it is the mother's right to choose what to do about it.

so an embryo becomes a fetus at 9 weeks, or 2/9ths of the way in roughly...so I think that around the 2nd trimester there should be regulations...IDK its just such a morally complicated issue with slippery slopes in both directions...
Funny, it's not "morally complicated" to me in the least.

Nobody gets to use your body against your wishes. Even if they need your body or your body parts to prolong their own life.

Nobody gets to take your kidney because they need a kidney to live, unless you say it's okay. Nobody gets to take your blood because they need a transfusion, unless you say it's okay. Nobody gets to cut into your body, or put something inside your body, or take a part out of your body, unless you say it's okay.

Doesn't matter if the individual in question is born or "unborn." Doesn't matter if they're 50 years old or 50 seconds old.

No matter how young or old they are, nobody else gets to use your body without your permission, period.

Very simple.

You might not LIKE it, but don't pretend like it has to be complicated. It doesn't.

The only reason it gets complicated is because some people want to add all sorts of special exceptions.

Like, Nobody gets to use your body without your permission...unless you're female.

Or, Nobody gets to use your body without your permission...unless you're female and consent to have sex (as if you had the right or something!)

Or, Nobody gets to use your body without your permission...unless they happen to be an "unborn person," in which case they have the right to use your body without your consent for as long as they need even though we don't recognize that right for any born human beings.

Or, Nobody gets to use your body without your permission...unless you were drinking, wearing a short skirt, walking alone, having extramarital sex, using drugs, or otherwise doing Something Naughty.

Or, Nobody gets to use your body without your permission...unless they're at a particular stage of development, like maybe any time after week 8 in gestation. Wait, maybe week 9? Hmm, when does a fetus sprout toes? Those are cute and baby-like features! Once something has tiny toes it's wrong to kill it, right? Look, it's cute! Cute things should have the right to live wherever they please, right?

Just ditch the complications.

Yeah, what Bottle said. :p

Then again, if abortion was banned you'd either have Prohibition-like criminal monopolies on underground abortion clinics with inherent risks to the pregnant woman/girl and/or overpopulation of mostly unwanted children who aren't getting adopted because they're not the Perfect White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Aryan Babies.

The bolded part is already true.

So...the world is perfect then! Yay! Next issue.
really? are you from the US? I know we have some of the most lax abortion laws in the world...I must admit, I am rather ignorant on some of the finer point.


one question...how is risk to fetal health a valid reason for abortion?:confused:
would it mean like if the baby was gonna be anacephalic and it was deemed safer for the mother to abort than to carry to term? cause I mean, its an abortion its not like the babies gonna live...

but then what can schrodinger's cat eat????
Canned tuna and kibble, which is actual when I put it into his dish. If it becomes an infinite multiplicity of potential cat dinners once I put the dish in the box and close the lid, that's not my problem. It was an actual dinner when I dished it out.

Yeah, what Bottle said. :p
Ditto what both of you said.

Chicken logic is simple:

DO NOT DEAL IN POTENTIALS.

Deal only in what IS, not what might be someday.

Period.

But if you don't deal with what will be someday, how can you improve on the now?

Canned tuna and kibble, which is actual when I put it into his dish. If it becomes an infinite multiplicity of potential cat dinners once I put the dish in the box and close the lid, that's not my problem. It was an actual dinner when I dished it out.

Ah I see! so was the cat dead or alive??? I mean your feeding it so alive? right?

Responding to the second edit:

It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

First, whether or not abortion is "immoral" is a question anyone considering getting an abortion needs to decide for herself. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's immoral really isn't relevant.

Second, biologically speaking, the phrase "life begins at conception" is pretty much nonsensical, given the extremely fuzzy nature of both nouns in that phrase. Ova and sperm are both alive. Fertilized ova are also alive, both before and after implantation. Your skin cells are also alive. A drop of your blood is alive. So freaking what? The question you actually mean to ask is not "Is it alive?" but "Is it a person?" - and to that, frankly, my answer would be a definite "no" until it possesses at least some of the traits associated with personhood, most notably to me the capacity for something resembling consciousness.

Third, even if a fertilized egg were a person, that wouldn't change my position on abortion. No actual born human being has the right to use my body against my will; why should something that is, at best, a rather dubious person get more rights than actual indisputable people?

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the back and forth in this thread is so unhinged that it might qualify as spam. I'm not really 100% on what I just read.

In dealing only with potentials and ignoring them, then there is no reason to improve on the now.

I don't bother with birth control. I just get my uterus scraped on the 15th of every month to ensure that if there is anything growing in there that shouldn't be, it gets sucked out and disposed of. It's a dangerous, expensive procedure, but at least I don't have to worry about messy spermicides, condoms, or other icky forms of birth control.

I don't take anything for the STIs though...I don't believe it's moral to kill off that particular form of life.

In dealing only with potentials and ignoring them, then there is no reason to improve on the now.

I bolded the important part of the discussion for you.

Funny, it's not "morally complicated" to me in the least.
Nobody gets to use your body against your wishes. Even if they need your body or your body parts to prolong their own life.
Nobody gets to take your kidney because they need a kidney to live, unless you say it's okay. Nobody gets to take your blood because they need a transfusion, unless you say it's okay. Nobody gets to cut into your body, or put something inside your body, or take a part out of your body, unless you say it's okay.
Doesn't matter if the individual in question is born or "unborn." Doesn't matter if they're 50 years old or 50 seconds old.
No matter how young or old they are, nobody else gets to use your body without your permission, period.
Very simple.
You might not LIKE it, but don't pretend like it has to be complicated. It doesn't.
really? so lets say we do this...abortions become legal with no string attached, you don't like your baby abort it...
my question then is, why should anybody get to use anything we have to keep themselves alive? why should the government use our money to help the poor? IDK...
keep in mind I'm not necessarily trying to debate...I'm just trying to get questions answered.

I don't bother with birth control. I just get my uterus scraped on the 15th of every month to ensure that if there is anything growing in there that shouldn't be, it gets sucked out and disposed of. It's a dangerous, expensive procedure, but at least I don't have to worry about messy spermicides, condoms, or other icky forms of birth control.

I don't take anything for the STIs though...I don't believe it's moral to kill off that particular form of life.

you dispose of it? That's DISGUSTING.

You're supposed to eat it...

really? are you from the US? I know we have some of the most lax abortion laws in the world...I must admit, I am rather ignorant on some of the finer point.
Some of the broader points, too, it seems. All the regulations that the anti-choice movement say are all they want, already exist in the US.

Also, the US is far from among the most lax when it comes to abortion laws.
Here's some comparison material for you to start with:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

one question...how is risk to fetal health a valid reason for abortion?:confused:
would it mean like if the baby was gonna be anacephalic and it was deemed safer for the mother to abort than to carry to term? cause I mean, its an abortion its not like the babies gonna live...
Asked and answered. When fetal health is the issue, it is because the fetus is already dead or dying or doomed to die (very badly) soon after birth. Since the condition of the fetus makes it impossible for a viable live birth to occur, or else guarantees an extremely short life of serious suffering and zero hope of sustainable function, many medical professionals consider it wiser to abort the pregnancy and not put the woman through the significant physical risks of giving birth for no reason.

The central argument against abortion is:
1: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
2: A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

Instead of arguing about the second premise in this argument, I will approach the first one.

The weakness of the first premise in this argument is the acceptance of the special status of human life. The term 'human' can mean two distinct things: being a member of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person. The core of being a person includes rationality and self-consciousness. In this sense of the word, a fetus is clearly not a human.

I posit that whether a being is or is not a member of our species is, in itself no more relevant to the wrongness of killing it than whether it is or is not a member of our race/sex/community and so on. To refute the commonly accepted mistaken view that there is a sharp line dividing Homo Sapiens from other species in the value of their life, all that needs to be done is to mention the fact there are nonhuman animals (such as apes) at similar levels of self-consciousness and with similar capacities for suffering as certain humans (such as severely mentally disabled adults). My suggestion, then, is that we accord the life of a fetus no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.

Killing a self-conscious being is wrong because it is aware of itself as a distinct entity, with a past and a future, with desires about its own future. From a utilitarian perspective, to maximize present happiness, one must consider all existing interests and desires when making ethical considerations. On the other hand, painlessly killing a non self-conscious being is not immoral, as struggle against danger and pain does not suggest that such beings are capable of preferring their own future existence to non-existence. Being killed does not make one worse off; it makes one cease to exist. Once a being ceases to exist, it shall not miss the pleasure it would have experienced. Only a being who can grasp the difference between dying and continuing to live can prefer to remain alive.

One objection to this argument is that it permits the killing of unconscious persons. From a utilitarian perspective, taking into account the interests of all, to have had the concept of having a continued existence in the past is sufficient for the right to life. My desire to continue living does not cease whenever I am not consciously thinking about it. We often desire things without the desire being at the forefront of our minds. The fact that we have the desire is apparent if we are reminded of it, or suddenly confronted with a situation in which we must choose between two courses of action, one of which makes the fulfilment of the desire less likely. In a similar way, when we go to sleep our desires for the future have not ceased to exist. They will still be there, when we wake. As the desires are still part of us, so, too, our interest in continued life remains part of us while we are asleep or unconscious.

Another objection to this argument is that it takes into account only the actual characteristiics of the fetus, and not its potential characteristics. Thus the argument is changed to:
1: It is wrong to kill a potential human being.
2: A human fetus is a potential human being.
Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

Yet there is no rule that says that a potential X has the same value as an X, or has all the rights of an X. To pull out a sprouting acorn is not the same as cutting down a venerable oak. To drop a live chicken into a pot of boiling water would be much worse than doing the same to an egg. The premise of the right to life is based on the fact that persons see themselves as distinct entities with a past and a future. They do not apply to those who are not now and never have been capable of seeing themselves in this way.

An additional argument is that an abortion deprives the world of something intrinsically valuable (such as a future scientist to cure cancer). But this stands up as a reason for objecting to all abortions, or even to abortions carried out merely because the pregnancy is inconveniently timed. Any reduction of future human population would then have to be condemned: contraception (artificial or natural), and celibacy. Additionally, if the world is already overpopulated, the argument provides no reason at all against abortion.

Finally, the last argument is that each human fetus is unique. Yet a canine fetus is also, no doubt, genetically unique. Mutated skin cells are unique. Pairs of identical twins are not unique, then would killing one out of a pair of twins be moral?

Clearly, such an approach to the moral dilemma through rational ethical examination leads us to conclude in favor of abortion.

really? so lets say we do this...abortions become legal with no string attached, you don't like your baby abort it...

Sounds good to me....

Were you trying to be sarcastic?

my question then is, why should anybody get to use anything we have to keep themselves alive? why should the government use our money to help the poor? IDK...

Your money is not your body.

really? so lets say we do this...abortions become legal with no string attached, you don't like your baby abort it...
my question then is, why should anybody get to use anything we have to keep themselves alive? why should the government use our money to help the poor? IDK...

What do those questions have to do with this topic?

I don't bother with birth control. I just get my uterus scraped on the 15th of every month to ensure that if there is anything growing in there that shouldn't be, it gets sucked out and disposed of. It's a dangerous, expensive procedure, but at least I don't have to worry about messy spermicides, condoms, or other icky forms of birth control.

I don't take anything for the STIs though...I don't believe it's moral to kill off that particular form of life.
/winthread

But if you don't deal with what will be someday, how can you improve on the now?
:D I just want to shower you with daisies for writing that. :D

Think, friend. Think.

Do you really think you can improve today by obsessing over tomorrow?

Think about it...

to neo art,
why? why is your money not your body? quite often you spent your body tog et it...your sweat your pain your tears? your time... why does the government have the right to take your money to keep people alive anymore than it has the right to take your body to keep people alive?
please explain.

you dispose of it? That's DISGUSTING.

You're supposed to eat it...

I'm a vegan.

Except when I swallow.

Ah I see! so was the cat dead or alive??? I mean your feeding it so alive? right?
How should I know? I just put the food in the box.

/winthread

Won't someone think of the CLAMYDIA!?

Your money is not your body.
Ironman proves otherwise! hah!

to neo art,
why? why is your money not your body?

...

Tell me, why is my pencil not Michaelangelo's ass?

I bolded the important part of the discussion for you.
Please, Neo, this won't help your headache. He was both dealing with potentials and ignoring them in the same sentence in that post.

...

Tell me, why is my pencil not Michaelangelo's ass?

That was pretty much my thought, too.

Although mine involved slightly more of me beating my head against my desk.

How should I know? I just put the food in the box.

right right sorry my bad. Back to the issue at hand. This whole argument centers around when exactly a potential child becomes "real" enough to be called a person. Frankly I'd say when the child is fully formed but thats just drawing a line in the sand. My opinion therefore is make abortion legal (or rather keep it legal) and if you don't like it then don't have an abortion.

Please, Neo, this won't help your headache. He was both dealing with potentials and ignoring them in the same sentence in that post.

shrodinger's cat isn't both dead and alive. It's dead, alive, and on the moon all at the same time.

Ironman proves otherwise! hah!
I roffled.

Here's a better question; are you alive?

...

Tell me, why is my pencil not Michaelangelo's ass?
That depends. Did Michaelangelo shit your pencil out of his ass, the way, apparently Spammers of Oz must shit money if he thinks money = body?

Here's a better question; are you alive?

I think therefore I am. what I think I am. I think? um?
bed now, head hurting lots.

That depends. Did Michaelangelo shit your pencil out of his ass, the way, apparently Spammers of Oz must shit money if he thinks money = body?

I think this is the only way I can answer that question.

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if Bruce Lee was reborn as a woodchuck?

I am just asking questions, but no one has answered the money one.

you can make fun of me all you want...but if the only you can explain it to me i s through flaming your not helping me see your side...

right right sorry my bad. Back to the issue at hand. This whole argument centers around when exactly a potential child becomes "real" enough to be called a person. Frankly I'd say when the child is fully formed but thats just drawing a line in the sand. My opinion therefore is make abortion legal (or rather keep it legal) and if you don't like it then don't have an abortion.
I don't know, that seems just so... oh, what's the word I want?... oh yeah, OBVIOUS. Really, with that kind of obviousness, it's no wonder it never occurs to anti-choicers. I guess. ;)

I am just asking questions, but no one has answered the money one.
You weren't really serious with that one, were you?

I don't know, that seems just so... oh, what's the word I want?... oh yeah, OBVIOUS. Really, with that kind of obviousness, it's no wonder it never occurs to anti-choicers. I guess. ;)

It's why I can never understand how anyone could characterise the two sides of the debate as equal.

On one hand, you have the choice to have an abortion...or not. Depending on your particular beliefs.

On the other hand, you have no choice, the choice has been made for you.

There is no equality of position here. Only one of these sides imposes a decision upon you.

I don't know, that seems just so... oh, what's the word I want?... oh yeah, OBVIOUS. Really, with that kind of obviousness, it's no wonder it never occurs to anti-choicers. I guess. ;)

lol good point. Very very good point.

I am just asking questions, but no one has answered the money one.

you can make fun of me all you want...but if the only you can explain it to me i s through flaming your not helping me see your side...

Well, I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to answer a question like "Why is your money not your body?" The best I can come up with is "Because one of them is your money, and one of them is your body, which are two entirely and completely different things."

I am just asking questions, but no one has answered the money one.

you can make fun of me all you want...but if the only you can explain it to me i s through flaming your not helping me see your side...

Money is not part of your body. Money is an object that is used to help sustain your body by buying goods that your body needs. Next.

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.

"Remember, it's not okay to end a fetus', but it's okay to kill people who disagree with you."

A message from the pro-life, pro-war, pro-death penalty coalition

Money is not part of your body. Money is an object that is used to help sustain your body by buying goods that your body needs. Next.

but what if I earn my money through work? it is essentially my time and sweat and effort...

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

I'm sure bunches of people have gone over all the legal issues already, so I'll just say this:

You use birth control because abortions are a lot more expensive, dippy.

This logic began as:

“Life neither begins at conception nor ends at death; it is merely a link in the chain fence. Life is energy and thus can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed. After all, when we die, we become food for other life forms which are food for others. We're just one link in this great chain.

Now that I'm done being philosophical; life beings when the foetus, regardless of what type of species it is, when it intakes its first breath of "air" (air in quotations as aquatic life forms don't breath the same air as those on land).

To put it another way, does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched? Do they count as part of his livestock or does he count them once they are hatched?”

This is meant to mean that life only begins with the first breath, i.e when the chicken is born.

My response to this was:

“If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?”

This was meant to mean that if one does not take stock in what there can be, how can they improve on the now for the future?"

The response came back as:

“Okay, here's your problem right here: Not all of those eggs will produce a live chicken. Some of them won't hatch at all.

The farmer will know if he's successful by waiting and seeing how many of his eggs hatch. Not by predicting how many he hopes will hatch.

And if he's borrowing money against his chicken flock, then he'd damn well better not count the chickens that don't exist yet, because that would be fraud.”

I believe this meant that, to count what there can be and putting stock into that is considered false and untrustworthy. (Am I right?)

However I do believe to think that everyone will hatch is folly, but one should take into account how they can improve so that more will hatch next time.

The further response came:

“If he counts them before they are hatched but only a few hatch and not all, he has jumped the gun. He will know he is successful when the eggs hatch. Only when he can see the chicks will he know his hens are profitable.

As for foetuses; just because an egg is fertilised doesn't mean it's a baby. Most fertilised eggs never get implanted. The woman's body expels the egg. Even if the egg is implanted, the body could expel it before it comes to term.”

The beginning of this quote, I do believe I explained already. The second part brings up a new topic on, when is it considered conception? Is it when the egg is fertilized or when the egg is implanted?

The next chicken quote was:

“If a farmer does not take into stock how many have hatched against those that have not, how will he ever improve as a farmer?”

Which was clarifying what I have already stated, the farmer will consider what caused these eggs to fail? When that problem is solved he can have more chickens and improve as a farmer, since chicken eggs do not need to be fertilized to be profitable.

Then the question was posed:

“yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?”

This is to clarify on what a fertilized egg is, and I responded:

“To count them as chickens, only when he counts them as chickens does he know where to improve if they fail to hatch.

If they are potential chickens then he would not bother to count them, and if none hatch he would fail as a farmer.”

Which was only further explaining the improvement on the failure to succeed as a farmer.

Then came, after which the “chicken” analogy became messy:

“He counts them as what they are -- eggs.

He sells them to Agrimark or Conagra. They end up in McMuffin sandwiches. Farmer profits.

Or he keeps some to hatch, and IF enough of them hatch, he sells them to Tyson, and they end up McNuggets. Farmer profits again BUT ONLY IF ENOUGH HATCH.

Because of that big IF, the actual eggs of today are worth more than the potential chickens of tomorrow.”





In conclusion, we need to recognize that a chicken is profitable in two ways: one, with a fertilized egg that ends up your breakfast and; two, a fertilized egg that ends up a chicken. To argue that all chicken eggs are fertilized and are future chickens is to say that the productive part of the chickens being is the same as its reproduction. Kind of like a cow giving milk is the same as producing another cow.

The chicken argument should only follow along the lines that the chicken egg is fertilized and will be a future chicken, granted you still can eat a fertilized egg. Now a fertilized egg will produce a chicken that will produce more eggs, either fertilized or not. With the second chicken the farmer is more profitable as a farmer because he now has another chicken.

If that fertilized egg fails to hatch and the farmer does not investigate as to why it did not hatch, he still only has one chicken. This act will continue until the chicken dies and now he has no chicken.

So, to ask, “does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched?”, the answer is yes.

but what if I earn my money through work? it is essentially my time and sweat and effort...

no, it's not. It's compensation for time and effort, but not the same thing.

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.

Fundamentally the government using your body as an incubator is really only directly affecting you and your partner. This could be either a benefit or a disadvantage.

The government using your money to pay for government services, police, highway maintenance etc. benefits everyone including yourself.

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.

What? What are you talking about? ok for the first part I agree. You should be able to do whatever you want with your body but to the second how are those two thing the same in anyway. You pay the government (in the form of taxes) for services it renders (sp?) to you and for your right to use services it render sto everyone. I don't understand how you think the two of those are even comparable???

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.

What is fundamentally different is that one of them directly infringes on your right to bodily autonomy, and one of them does not.

Also, comparing forced pregnancy to taxation is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I'm not talking about the government using it for police, I'm talking about the government using it to buy say, food for the poor, and health insurance and stuff. assuming you have enough food and health insurance and all.

and using your body as an incubator also affects the fetus...self-aware or not, it still affects it :P

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


That's utterly incoherent. You use birth control to prevent... birth, regardless of whether life begins at conception or not.

I'm not talking about the government using it for police, I'm talking about the government using it to buy say, food for the poor, and health insurance and stuff. assuming you have enough food and health insurance and all.

and using your body as an incubator also affects the fetus...self-aware or not, it still affects it :P

read my post above. Read your post again. Think. edit.

I'm not talking about the government using it for police, I'm talking about the government using it to buy say, food for the poor, and health insurance and stuff. assuming you have enough food and health insurance and all.

and using your body as an incubator also affects the fetus...self-aware or not, it still affects it :P

I should have written that in.

Well still money for health insurance, food for the poor etc. allows the Government to tackle problems within the nation and benefits those that receive the help.

EDIT: To add a personal touch to this I would not have been able to attend university without the grant I get from the government to support me through it.

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.
It is fundamentally different for several reasons, just a few of which are:

1) If your money is taken, you can get more money. You can't get another body.

2) If your money is taken, that does not damage your ability to get more money. Every pregnancy a woman undergoes carries physical risks that can end her ability to ever get pregnant again. Pregnancy also carries risks that can harm her ability to regain full health and thus work for money.

3) If the government takes your money, it does not do so with physical violence, beating you up and threatening to kill you with a gun. Every pregnancy inflicts significant damage on a woman's body and carries the risk of killing the woman.

4) Pregnancy scenarios are real. They actually happen. Your government-taking-your-money scenario is completely unrealistic. The government does not do what you suggest it does. Fantasy is not equivalent to reality, any more than money is equivalent to body.

No I was...what is fundamentally different about the government making me use my body as an incubator because I got pregnant for 9 months, and between it taking my money that I used my body to earn for welfare and such. not that I oppose it doing it...I'm just curious.

The government is a utilitarian construct, rather than a moral one.

Welfare is a good thing from a utilitarian standpoint, whereas more people on the planet is not.

works for me. I realized I was basically grasping at straws anyway...
I still have comments/questions but I have other places to bring them up as well.

Hey hey! I have a question and if no one take it seriously I'm going to have proof positive that I am waaaay smarter than you guys and my unimaginable cleverness has you all stumped!

Na, looks like that's already been done.

I just acknowledged you were right...what else do you want? ;)

A cherry pie.

You have twenty-four hours.

I just acknowledged you were right...what else do you want? ;)

This second day of a wine hangover to be over.

I just acknowledged you were right...what else do you want? ;)

a written thousand word apology . . .or a cookie!

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ae9a1eEmcEqjVM:http://www.realbakingwithrose.com/cherry_pie_with_pate_sucree-thumb.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:qflG4_hqQkNUMM:http://www.driveinpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg

you can keep the hangover ;)

AWESOME!
*munches cookie happily*

Life doesn't "begin" as such - life spreads. Death is an end for the host or the carrier of life, or, as some say, a transformation from life to a different kind of energy.

So no. Life doesn't begin at conception. And birth control is a means of keeping life from spreading to rapidly or beyond ones control.

*Pies soldnerism*

I think the debate is phrased wrong. This whole qestion of when life begins is silly. Biologicly life begins when cells metabolize. This definition of life doesn't stop us from killing other organic forms of life like plants and animals. The real question is when that life becomes a human. Personally I think abortion is a bad idea period.

As to birth control..... I get that it's hypocracy to a degree for either side to use certain forms of birth control, but I don't think it matters.

I think the debate is phrased wrong. This whole qestion of when life begins is silly. Biologicly life begins when cells metabolize. This definition of life doesn't stop us from killing other organic forms of life like plants and animals. The real question is when that life becomes a human. Personally I think abortion is a bad idea period.

As to birth control..... I get that it's hypocracy to a degree for either side to use certain forms of birth control, but I don't think it matters.

why do you think that abortion is a bad idea exactly?

*Pies soldnerist*

No food fights now! :tongue:

Also Gravlin needs to stop pretending he's smart and say something original :)

Also Gravlin needs to stop pretending he's smart and say something original :)

so . . .not gonna answer my question?

Originally Posted by Soldnerism
But if you don't deal with what will be someday, how can you improve on the now?


:D I just want to shower you with daisies for writing that. :D

Think, friend. Think.

Do you really think you can improve today by obsessing over tomorrow?

Think about it...

You can improve today by thinking about tomorrow. It follows the logic that every action has a reaction.

You also have to understand that there are somethings in the future that you will not be able to control. You determine the possible reactions to your action and choose the best action.



Edit: I see Muravyets is gone. Oh well.

why do you think that abortion is a bad idea exactly?

I'm just not a fan of it. I have family and a couple friends who have hade them, and all of them have some regrets. I think the potential for a fetus to survive and mature to adult hood messes with peoples head. There will always be questions of what if in a situation like that. Also I think it's impossible to come up with a good deffinition of when a fetus becomes human for abortion to be legislated on either side, and the question of wether or not the potential of a fetus to become a person is stuff I don't think government should get into. I do have a dog in it though since my personal and religious beliefs are pro life.

so . . .not gonna answer my question?

Sorry I really wanted to get in a dig before I posted a respnose :)

Also Gravlin needs to stop pretending he's smart and say something original :)
You need to be smart and spell my name right.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator9465337.jpg

I'm just not a fan of it. I have family and a couple friends who have hade them, and all of them have some regrets. I think the potential for a fetus to survive and mature to adult hood messes with peoples head. There will always be questions of what if in a situation like that. Also I think it's impossible to come up with a good deffinition of when a fetus becomes human for abortion to be legislated on either side, and the question of wether or not the potential of a fetus to become a person is stuff I don't think government should get into. I do have a dog in it though since my personal and religious beliefs are pro life.

so don't have an abortion then but why would you force your political and personal views on others? Also then should the choice not be there's. Yes there is going to be some Mental problems with having an abortion but that's not even close to those associated with giving birth (postpartum depression stress, etc.) but no one's suggesting we make giving birth illegal. Secondly no its not. Its just hard to make that decision which is the whole point of having a government. They are the people we elect to make hard decisions.

who said I as smart? I didn't. Sorry I misspelled your name.

so don't have an abortion then but why would you force your political and personal views on others?

Reread what I wrote. Just because I don't think it's right to get an abortion doesn't mean I'm forcing my political views on others. I don't believe the government of the US should legislate either way, wether pro or anti abortion.

who said I as smart? I didn't.
Neither did I. I just offered up a suggestion.

And the lack of originality doesn't detract from the accuracy of my statement.

Reread what I wrote. Just because I don't think it's right to get an abortion doesn't mean I'm forcing my political views on others. I don't believe the government of the US should legislate either way, wether pro or anti abortion.

in which case abortions remain legal . . .as they are not illegal. The government cannot stay out of this (as in the government physically can't stay out of it. If it leaves things the way they are then abortions are legal) and as a second point no one is pro-abortion.No one goes out and says "Hey! you know what'd be fun? having an abortion!" Some people are just pro-choice. As in "lets let people make their own choices rather than telling them they cannot legally have an abortion."

Neither did I. I just offered up a suggestion.

And the lack of originality doesn't detract from the accuracy of my statement.

how is it accurate? It said very little for how much you typed.

How is life spreads a statement relative to this topic? Sure it can be argued that it's a fact, but it has nothing to do with when life starts or end.

1) If your money is taken, you can get more money. You can't get another body.
It's a technical problem, but we're working on it with steady progress. What about after it's solved?


2) If your money is taken, that does not damage your ability to get more money.
It does. Say, I have $60,000 in investments, which brings me $10,000 a year. If the government takes away these $60,000, it impairs my ability to get more money, by $10,000/year.

4) Pregnancy scenarios are real. They actually happen. Your government-taking-your-money scenario is completely unrealistic.
What? It's doing it all the time, you even have to file tax reports.

how is it accurate? It said very little for how much you typed.

How is life spreads a statement relative to this topic? Sure it can be argued that it's a fact, but it has nothing to do with when life starts or end.

it has everything to do with how life starts and ends as life neither starts nor ends and thus any argument against abortion rights based on "the sanctity of life." is ridiculous.



(please don't be a creationist , please don't be a creationist, please don't be a creationist)

What is fundamentally different is that one of them directly infringes on your right to bodily autonomy, and one of them does not.

Also, comparing forced pregnancy to taxation is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

But why isn't Mt. Everest my body?

There actually are alot of people out there in the pro choice camp that think abortions are a good idea. I never said anything about them being fun. Also by the US government legislating that they be legal they are legislating. I agree that it's not possible for any government not to take sides in this, but our government has consistantly legislated for abortion since it was delclared a constitutional right. Abortion is still one of the few surgical procedures that doesn't require parental permission if you're under 18. Even life saving surgery requires that they notify your gaurdians.

it has everything to do with how life starts and ends as life neither starts nor ends and thus any argument against abortion rights based on "the sanctity of life." is ridiculous.



(please don't be a creationist , please don't be a creationist, please don't be a creationist)

It's not even a creationist vs. whatever arguement. You cannot make an altruistic arguement on an individual life by generalizing the history of life as a whole.

so don't have an abortion then but why would you force your political and personal views on others?


Because some people are ok with doing just that. We call them "jerks".

how is it accurate? It said very little for how much you typed.

How is life spreads a statement relative to this topic? Sure it can be argued that it's a fact, but it has nothing to do with when life starts or end.

It's got everything to do with the topic. Does life begin at conception? No. Why not? Because it's already there, in the sperm and the egg.

Life spreads, but does not begin, at conception.

There actually are alot of people out there in the pro choice camp that think abortions are a good idea. I never said anything about them being fun. Also by the US government legislating that they be legal they are legislating. I agree that it's not possible for any government not to take sides in this, but our government has consistantly legislated for abortion since it was delclared a constitutional right. Abortion is still one of the few surgical procedures that doesn't require parental permission if you're under 18. Even life saving surgery requires that they notify your gaurdians.

1)how could you possibly know that? You're obviously not a member of the pro-choice camp. I doubt anyone wants to have an abortion its just that having the option is a good thing. Some people may not want to have a child despite being pregnant but thats a different thing entirely.

2)ok so what? the government stepping away from this issue means leaving it the way it is. Right? So then abortion would remain legal. Unless what your really saying is you want the government to legislate against. Thats my point as you said
I don't believe the government of the US should legislate either way, whether (i fixed spelling) pro choice or pro life .

This logic began as:
OK, FIRST, please learn to use the quote button and the multi-quote button (the one with the + sign). Using these will cause all the posts you want to quote and answer/comment on to be boxed with the name of the person who wrote them. Below, you have quoted several people, including yourself, without giving any attribution, thus making it seem as if one continuous argument was being posted by one person, which is not what happened.

Now, to the rest of your post:

“Life neither begins at conception nor ends at death; it is merely a link in the chain fence. Life is energy and thus can be neither created nor destroyed, just changed. After all, when we die, we become food for other life forms which are food for others. We're just one link in this great chain.

Now that I'm done being philosophical; life beings when the foetus, regardless of what type of species it is, when it intakes its first breath of "air" (air in quotations as aquatic life forms don't breath the same air as those on land).

To put it another way, does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched? Do they count as part of his livestock or does he count them once they are hatched?”

This is meant to mean that life only begins with the first breath, i.e when the chicken is born.

My response to this was:

“If a farmer does not count his chickens before they are hatched, how will he know if he is successful as a farmer?”

This was meant to mean that if one does not take stock in what there can be, how can they improve on the now for the future?"
Unless you have the power to foretell the future, you cannot "improve on the now for the future" just by thinking about what might happen in the future.

If you want to improve on the now, you have to compare it to the past to figure out what did not work in the past and try something new. Even so, you will not know if your new measures work until you see the results. In other words, until they become the past.

The response came back as:

“Okay, here's your problem right here: Not all of those eggs will produce a live chicken. Some of them won't hatch at all.

The farmer will know if he's successful by waiting and seeing how many of his eggs hatch. Not by predicting how many he hopes will hatch.

And if he's borrowing money against his chicken flock, then he'd damn well better not count the chickens that don't exist yet, because that would be fraud.”

I believe this meant that, to count what there can be and putting stock into that is considered false and untrustworthy. (Am I right?)
Not exactly.

It is not false and untrustworthy to make plans in the hope of achieving a desired result in the future.

But it would be false and dishonest to arrange the real world of today and to make real-world commitments today on the basis TODAY of something that does not exist today and which you cannot guarantee ever will exist.

So, just as it would be fraud for the farmer to borrow money against chickens he does not actually have, so it would be false and dishonet to write laws that restrict the rights of woman who exist now and claim it is going to help children who do not exist now.

However I do believe to think that everyone will hatch is folly, but one should take into account how they can improve so that more will hatch next time.
And here is where we see how your argument is failing to come together. You are confusing past and future events here.

Think about the timeline of your scenario and ask yourself this:

If the farmer is planning how to do better next time, does that not suggest that his eggs have already hatched and he sees they did not do well?

In other words, has he in fact NOT counted his chickens BEFORE they hatched?

The further response came:

“If he counts them before they are hatched but only a few hatch and not all, he has jumped the gun. He will know he is successful when the eggs hatch. Only when he can see the chicks will he know his hens are profitable.

As for foetuses; just because an egg is fertilised doesn't mean it's a baby. Most fertilised eggs never get implanted. The woman's body expels the egg. Even if the egg is implanted, the body could expel it before it comes to term.”

The beginning of this quote, I do believe I explained already. The second part brings up a new topic on, when is it considered conception? Is it when the egg is fertilized or when the egg is implanted?
The person who posted this comment will have to be the one to speak to what they meant, but I would refer you back to my earlier comment that the point at which "life begins" is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.

The next chicken quote was:

“If a farmer does not take into stock how many have hatched against those that have not, how will he ever improve as a farmer?”

Which was clarifying what I have already stated, the farmer will consider what caused these eggs to fail? When that problem is solved he can have more chickens and improve as a farmer, since chicken eggs do not need to be fertilized to be profitable.

Then the question was posed:

“yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?”

This is to clarify on what a fertilized egg is, and I responded:

“To count them as chickens, only when he counts them as chickens does he know where to improve if they fail to hatch.

If they are potential chickens then he would not bother to count them, and if none hatch he would fail as a farmer.”

Which was only further explaining the improvement on the failure to succeed as a farmer.
An unfertilized egg is irrelevant to this discussion, but an unhatched egg is still not a chicken.

Then came, after which the “chicken” analogy became messy:

“He counts them as what they are -- eggs.

He sells them to Agrimark or Conagra. They end up in McMuffin sandwiches. Farmer profits.

Or he keeps some to hatch, and IF enough of them hatch, he sells them to Tyson, and they end up McNuggets. Farmer profits again BUT ONLY IF ENOUGH HATCH.

Because of that big IF, the actual eggs of today are worth more than the potential chickens of tomorrow.”


In conclusion, we need to recognize that a chicken is profitable in two ways: one, with a fertilized egg that ends up your breakfast and; two, a fertilized egg that ends up a chicken. To argue that all chicken eggs are fertilized and are future chickens is to say that the productive part of the chickens being is the same as its reproduction. Kind of like a cow giving milk is the same as producing another cow.

The chicken argument should only follow along the lines that the chicken egg is fertilized and will be a future chicken, granted you still can eat a fertilized egg. Now a fertilized egg will produce a chicken that will produce more eggs, either fertilized or not. With the second chicken the farmer is more profitable as a farmer because he now has another chicken.

If that fertilized egg fails to hatch and the farmer does not investigate as to why it did not hatch, he still only has one chicken. This act will continue until the chicken dies and now he has no chicken.

So, to ask, “does the farmer count his chickens before they are hatched?”, the answer is yes.
No, the answer is no. Here's why: The farmer has no guarantee that any of those fertilized eggs will yield a live chicken he can sell to Tyson. Until the egg hatches and chicken pops out, there is no chicken. There is only something that might someday become a chicken but at present does not have enough of the characteristics of a chicken to function as one. Therefore, not a chicken.

Similarly, the argument that a fertilized ovum will someday turn into a human being and that is why abortion is bad fails because the fertilized ovum lacks the characteristics necessary to be a human being. It is human tissue, but then, so is a tumor or any of the millions of skin cells we slough off every year. They are not people, though. Neither is the fertilized ovum, and there is no way anyone in the world can guarantee that it ever will become one.

Because some people are ok with doing just that. We call them "jerks".

I don't understand what your trying to get at here . . .

You can improve today by thinking about tomorrow. It follows the logic that every action has a reaction.

Ok. I see what you're saying here (maybe).

But what does it have to do with abortion? Are you saying we should inspect every sexually active woman every month to see if she has a fertilized egg that does or does not lead to pregnancy that does or does not lead to live birth?

How would we go about doing that and to what purpose?

If that's not what you're saying, how does your discussion of farmers comparing the number of eggs they have to the number that hatch have anything to do with the thread?

There actually are alot of people out there in the pro choice camp that think abortions are a good idea.

A good idea? Or just sometimes the best solution to a bad situation?

Also by the US government legislating that they be legal they are legislating.

Wrong. All things are, by default, legal. If the government takes no action whatsoever regarding an action, it is legal.

If the government legislates on an action, it is to makes something illegal - it is telling you what you cannot do.

I agree that it's not possible for any government not to take sides in this, but our government has consistantly legislated for abortion since it was delclared a constitutional right.

The only way to "legislate for abortion" would be to legislate a requirement to get an abortion.

This is like saying that the fact that drinking alcohol is legal means that the government is "legislating for alcohol use".

It's got everything to do with the topic. Does life begin at conception? No. Why not? Because it's already there, in the sperm and the egg.

Life spreads, but does not begin, at conception.

This is an interesting thought. So, if you believe that life begins in the egg and sperm and you believe that it is immoral to take a human life.

It only leads to believe that male masturbation is wrong. That is too say you also believe the purpose of sperm is to "spread" life.

A good idea? Or just sometimes the best solution to a bad situation?



Wrong. All things are, by default, legal. If the government takes no action whatsoever regarding an action, it is legal.

If the government legislates on an action, it is to makes something illegal - it is telling you what you cannot do.



The only way to "legislate for abortion" would be to legislate a requirement to get an abortion.

This is like saying that the fact that drinking alcohol is legal means that the government is "legislating for alcohol use".
thank you.

It's a technical problem, but we're working on it with steady progress. What about after it's solved?
A) No, you're not.

B) Then they'd run into the problem of the fact that I don't work for them.

It does. Say, I have $60,000 in investments, which brings me $10,000 a year. If the government takes away these $60,000, it impairs my ability to get more money, by $10,000/year.


What? It's doing it all the time, you even have to file tax reports.
Taxation is not theft. It's payment for services delivered. Tell me, what would the government deliver to me to balance what it would be taking by forcing me into pregnancy-as-servitude?

This is an interesting thought. So, if you believe that life begins in the egg and sperm and you believe that it is immoral to take a human life.

It only leads to believe that male masturbation is wrong. That is too say you also believe the purpose of sperm is to "spread" life.

or that human life and life are two different things. its not immoral to take life. it happens ALL THE TIME. Your immune system is doing it right now. Human life, on the other hand, is something different. So regardless of where life begins, Human life, begins at some other, entirely different, point.

this topics pointless and full of stereotypical characterizations and really strange philosophy. Is this what you people really do all day? If people are going to characterise me and not going to discuss things then whats the point? Just chest thumping? Anyway I need to run errands, have fun doing whatever it is you guys are actually doing.

. Yes there is going to be some Mental problems with having an abortion but that's not even close to those associated with giving birth (postpartum depression stress, etc.) but no one's suggesting we make giving birth illegal. .

sorry to reenter the debate temporarily, but from pregnant pause
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/so_you.htm

so the first one says that abortion seems to be more deadly than birth, though its kinda vague, and the second one list complications. of course we need a list of birth complications to make this complete...so if anyone has one, please post it.

Abortion is still one of the few surgical procedures that doesn't require parental permission if you're under 18. Even life saving surgery requires that they notify your gaurdians.

How many documented cases are there of guardians beating or killing their children for getting life-saving surgery? I've never heard of any, while, sadly, there are more than a few cases of guardians doing just that in response to girls getting abortions. There are also more than a few cases when the "guardian" caused the pregnancy in the first place.

Silly law, trying to keep children from being raped and murdered!

Ok. I see what you're saying here (maybe).

But what does it have to do with abortion? Are you saying we should inspect every sexually active woman every month to see if she has a fertilized egg that does or does not lead to pregnancy that does or does not lead to live birth?

How would we go about doing that and to what purpose? <snip>
Ask her to sit on a candle.

And do it for the purpose of locking her up in a coop if it turns out she is carrying a potential future Foghorn Leghorn, Jr.

<snip>
Wrong. All things are, by default, legal. If the government takes no action whatsoever regarding an action, it is legal.

If the government legislates on an action, it is to makes something illegal - it is telling you what you cannot do.



The only way to "legislate for abortion" would be to legislate a requirement to get an abortion.

This is like saying that the fact that drinking alcohol is legal means that the government is "legislating for alcohol use".
Thank you for pointing this out.

this topics pointless and full of stereotypical characterizations and really strange philosophy. Is this what you people really do all day? If people are going to characterise me and not going to discuss things then whats the point? Just chest thumping? Anyway I need to run errands, have fun doing whatever it is you guys are actually doing.

lol wow you really are not that bright. You just came in here, made a claim and then couldn't explain it fully. You didn't use anything close to proper language or spelling (though that's really not a big deal for me) and then you post that?? Really??? right . . .
/rant

First, How was any of that a stereotypical characterization exactly? Secondly how is any of this stranger than believing that, while the government should stay out of abortions, someone should do something about abortions (i think that was your argument but honestly I'm not too sure anymore). Third we were discussing things, you just failed to do it well. Fourth There's been literally no chest thumping here. Fifth enjoy running errands.

This is an interesting thought. So, if you believe that life begins in the egg and sperm and you believe that it is immoral to take a human life.

It only leads to believe that male masturbation is wrong.
You're missing something: The qualifier "human". While I might find it immoral to take a human life, I don't find it immoral to snuff out life. I kill bacteria every day, I consume foodstuffs that has had all life removed so my body can use it as energy, and I have swatted annoying insects before and I will again.

So were to draw the line? That's as arbitrary as our definition of "human" in general. And I draw that imaginary arbitrary line at birth.

This is an interesting thought. So, if you believe that life begins in the egg and sperm and you believe that it is immoral to take a human life.

It only leads to believe that male masturbation is wrong. That is too say you also believe the purpose of sperm is to "spread" life.

What does "belief" have to do with any of this?

An egg IS alive. Spermatozoa ARE alive. No one disputes this. However, seeing as skin cells are alive, tumors are alive, bacteria are alive, and the pig that went into your ham sandwich was alive, how is whether or not something is alive actually relevant to this discussion?

sorry to reenter the debate temporarily, but from pregnant pause
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/so_you.htm

so the first one says that abortion seems to be more deadly than birth, though its kinda vague, and the second one list complications. of course we need a list of birth complications to make this complete...so if anyone has one, please post it.
There's this thing called the "internet" and it has this service on it called "google" (funny name, huh?), and if you go to it and type in words like "pregnancy complications," it spits out whole lists of links with information like this one:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/index.htm

(first site on the google search)

A) No, you're not.
We are. It's already possible to transplant all internal organs up to heart. Partial limb transplantation is being tested. Bones can be replaced. Faces are fixed regularly. In time, we'll come to a stage where it's possible to replace everything apart from the brain. And not all that long time.
Plus rich people will probably order to grow and kept suspended a clone for them, as a source of spares, to fix injuries or just replace aged components.

B) Then they'd run into the problem of the fact that I don't work for them.
Yeah, but they do take your money without asking.


Taxation is not theft. It's payment for services delivered.
It isn't, it's collection of money to be half wasted, half embezzled.

If was payment for services delivered, why am I forced to agree to a specific set of services, "delivered" (often not) by a monopolist? I didn't request these services, I don't need many of them, why should I pay? Why can't I select the contractor?
It's not "services rendered", it's socialism and the government thinking it knows what I need better than I do.


Tell me, what would the government deliver to me to balance what it would be taking by forcing me into pregnancy-as-servitude?
Well, it takes our money to embezzle and waste on killing people overseas; and we're supposed to consider it to "balance" the tax....

Hmm, I think it could take your kid, conscript him, and tell you he died for your nation. Would be about as fair a balance I guess.

We are. It's already possible to transplant all internal organs up to heart. Partial limb transplantation is being tested. Bones can be replaced. Faces are fixed regularly. In time, we'll come to a stage where it's possible to replace everything apart from the brain. And not all that long time.
Plus rich people will probably order to grow and kept suspended a clone for them, as a source of spares, to fix injuries or just replace aged components.


Yeah, but they do take your money without asking.



It isn't, it's collection of money to be half wasted, half embezzled.

If was payment for services delivered, why am I forced to agree to a specific set of services, "delivered" (often not) by a monopolist? I didn't request these services, I don't need many of them, why should I pay? Why can't I select the contractor?
It's not "services rendered", it's socialism and the government thinking it knows what I need better than I do.



Well, it takes our money to embezzle and waste on killing people overseas; and we're supposed to consider it to "balance" the tax....

Hmm, I think it could take your kid, conscript him, and tell you he died for your nation. Would be about as fair a balance I guess.
Sigh.

*arranges to have Vault 10 reincarnated as a tapeworm in his next life*

I think most of this thread has missed the 'big picture.' Okay, so let's say life begins at conception...does that mean that a rape victim or pregnant teenager is any more qualified to give that child a decent life? Absolutely not.
Those that are pro-choice don't eat babies or enjoy murder, they sincerely believe that (as difficult as it may be) women should be allowed the option to not have a child if it would cause them physical harm or if they are unable to care for it. I understand that adoption is a possibility, but going through 9 months of pregnancy could have drastic ramifications on an unprepared woman, even if she doesn't intend to keep the child. Maybe the mother has to drop out of school, maybe she has to take leave from her job, etc.
It comes down to a question of personal freedom. Will those of you that oppose abortion help young mothers pay to feed their children? Will any of you take time out of your days to babysit for women that wanted abortions but decided against them? I highly doubt it. Until you can tell me otherwise, your argument will fall flat in my opinion.

Abortion is still one of the few surgical procedures that doesn't require parental permission if you're under 18. Even life saving surgery requires that they notify your gaurdians.

This varies by state. According to wikipedia as of 2006 34 states required some type of parental involvement in a minor's decision to have an abortion — 21 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, 11 require one or both parents be notified and 2 require both consent and notification before an elective abortion can occur

I believe that life begins at conception

no, you don't. or rather you almost certainly hold conflicting views, and the only non-monstrous way to reconcile them is to abandon the above belief entirely.

it's ok, it happens to everyone.

Because of the analogy to microbes given just now, I think it's silly to say, "at conception".

But, for the purposes of abortion, it's my personal belief that life begins at the point where, if the fetus is removed surgically from the uterus, that the fetus can be kept alive and matured by medical science.

That is, if it's technically feasible to keep a fetus alive when it's removed, and it didn't come out dead, then the doctors are obligated to keep it alive.

The mother doesn't have to keep it. I'm fine with that (in fact, I believe that anyone who doesn't want children should never be allowed to have them).

Technology is drawing that line closer and closer these days.

I'm even OK with this law:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/277717/36/

While I do not quite believe in the same line it comes right now into probabilities so often, using it as any sort of real guide would be not-feasible


Personally I cant wait for the day where the question becomes moot and the entire process can be removed from having biologic consequences (or at least mostly remove those consequences)

But even then there are many other problems for society as a whole at that point

If the OP is committed to dealing in potentials, then let him/her consider that every abortion removes a potential serial killer/rapist/child abuser/murder/wife beater/child molester/demon kitten drowner from the world, therefor saving many lives from being negatively affected.

Or, to take a less extreme position, by the OPs logic, as soon as a couple concieves, they should immediately paint their future child's room pink, because obviously the potential for it to be born a girl means that it is a girl. If on that 50% chance it turns out to be born a boy, then, we learn from our mistakes and paint every room thereafter blue upon conception.

I believe the logic here is that people use contraception instead of abortion for birth control because they secretly deep down really believe that life begins at conception, and thus all pro-life activists who use conception are nasty smelly hypocrites who can't be trusted to make a good cup of tea, never mind talk about whether abortion is right or wrong.

How you managed to extract something meaningful from that is amazing. My hat is off to you.

I'm pro-choice, and TBH I do believe life begins at conception.

However, I don't have problems with post-birth abortion in some cases (i.e. birth defects) either.

I'm very pro-choice, but I have to say, I draw the line at aborting babies after they're born.

yet does he count them as chickens, or merely as potential chickens?

Conceptual chickens?

Intoxication, for most people, does not begin at the first beer. But as time goes by and you have enough of them, damned if most people don't end up drunk. Some people choose not to have the first drink. Not anyone in this forum, understand, but I hear rumors.

Personally, the fact that consciousness does not begin at conception makes early-term abortions relatively morally untroublesome for me. As the life is not yet conscious, I feel that its outweighed by the right of the woman to do as she wishes with her own body. Later-term abortions I find a little more problematic, as when something is conscious, killing it becomes to my eyes a lot more immoral.

Taxation is not theft. It's payment for services delivered.

Yeah, I don't consider a million dead Iraqis to be a "service" to me. Or anyone.

And it's really more like extortion. It's like "protection money" from the mob. Yeah I can refuse - and either leave the country - or have Big Al come and break my legs. In the case of government, it's not breaking legs, it's putting me in prison where Big Bubba breaks my anal cherry.

That's not paying for services, in the sense of me asking Juan to do some gardening work and me paying him for it. It's not like Juan comes to me and demands that I let him do gardening or else he'll deport/imprison me.

Every time I read one of these discussions, I read something about how terrible abortion is, how there are always regrets, emotional difficulties, mental breakdowns....

I would like to set the record straight. It is 20 years since my abortion and I have yet to experience any pang of regret or mental trauma. On the contrary, I am utterly grateful to those campaigners and medical professionals who made abortion possible for me; When I woke up after the operation, I felt pure relief and still do whenever I think of it.

Abortion rights are a hugely important issue of me. The right to bodily autonomy could just as easily be termed "the right to be a person".

Carrying a pregnancy entails many restrictions and penalties - women who become mothers jeopardise their health, their reputations, their careers, their pensions, their educational opportunities, their personal dreams and hopes, their homes, their livelihoods, the security and care of their dependants and even their identities as they become "xyz's mum" or "single welfare-dependant mum who is responsible for all the evils of our society". Somehow or other, these losses are easily dismissed as "personal inconvenience" almost as if those things didn't matter in the first place.

There are many laws in western societies that have been put in place precisely to protect the above rights and needs for non-pregnant people because there is a consensus that they are fundamental to a human person's wellbeing. To say that they are just so much fluff to pregnant women, that is, to put above them the theoretical wishes of potential non-sentient parasitical entities, is to deny the personhood and place in society of pregnant women and to relegate them to a role as sub-human incubators.

It's a huge attack on anything and everything that makes you more than the sum of your anatomy and choosing abortion is as easy and as right as choosing to defend yourself against any assailant.

Every time I read one of these discussions, I read something about how terrible abortion is, how there are always regrets, emotional difficulties, mental breakdowns....

I would like to set the record straight. It is 20 years since my abortion and I have yet to experience any pang of regret or mental trauma.

Oh heck.

Just for a moment there, I thought it's been 20 years since you've been aborted but survived.

I'm just not a fan of it. I have family and a couple friends who have hade them, and all of them have some regrets. I think the potential for a fetus to survive and mature to adult hood messes with peoples head. There will always be questions of what if in a situation like that. Also I think it's impossible to come up with a good deffinition of when a fetus becomes human for abortion to be legislated on either side, and the question of wether or not the potential of a fetus to become a person is stuff I don't think government should get into. I do have a dog in it though since my personal and religious beliefs are pro life.

so don't have an abortion then but why would you force your political and personal views on others? Also then should the choice not be there's. Yes there is going to be some Mental problems with having an abortion but that's not even close to those associated with giving birth (postpartum depression stress, etc.) but no one's suggesting we make giving birth illegal. Secondly no its not. Its just hard to make that decision which is the whole point of having a government. They are the people we elect to make hard decisions.

sorry to reenter the debate temporarily, but from pregnant pause
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/so_you.htm

so the first one says that abortion seems to be more deadly than birth, though its kinda vague, and the second one list complications. of course we need a list of birth complications to make this complete...so if anyone has one, please post it.

OK, let's kill any misperceptions and misinformation dead.

The following statements are true:
1. ABORTION IS SAFER THAN CHILDBIRTH!!!

2. ABORTION IS AMONG THE SAFEST OF MEDICAL PROCEDURES!!

3. ABORTION IS NOT A THREAT TO A WOMAN'S MENTAL HEALTH!!!

4. BANNING ABORTION IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO WOMEN THAN ALLOWING ABORTION!!!

The above are supported by the following sources:
United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC): link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm), link (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), link (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Products&Pubs/DatatoAction/pdf/rhow6.pdf) (pdf)
Alan Guttmacher Institute: link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html)
World Health Organization: link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html), link (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract)
American Psychological Association: link (http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html), link (http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.pdf) (pdf).

Copius additional data may be found at the following: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9434175&postcount=1).

Also, just for the record:
1. Pregnant Pause is a ridiculously biased and misleading source.
2. Pregnant Pause grossly misrepresents the data from that one isolated Finnish study. link (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/459?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=abortion&searchid=1133566414585_380&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=eurpub), link (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7084/902)
3. Other research (including that cited above) rebuts those that would reach negative conclusions about abortion based on that one isolated Finnish study.

Every time I read one of these discussions, I read something about how terrible abortion is, how there are always regrets, emotional difficulties, mental breakdowns....


A friend of mine in England wanted an abortion, and allowed her family to pressure her out of doing it.

When her little boy was two years old, she committed suicide. The assertion that there are always repercussion of abortion ignores the fact that there are repercussions of giving birth. Which is idiotic, because the specific depression that follows a birth is so well documented that it's got it's own definition (post-partum depression) and even has a trivial name ('baby blues').

It's a spectre. It's not designed to be real or accurate, just to scare people into agreeing.

Yeah, I don't consider a million dead Iraqis to be a "service" to me. Or anyone.

And it's really more like extortion. It's like "protection money" from the mob. Yeah I can refuse - and either leave the country - or have Big Al come and break my legs. In the case of government, it's not breaking legs, it's putting me in prison where Big Bubba breaks my anal cherry.

That's not paying for services, in the sense of me asking Juan to do some gardening work and me paying him for it. It's not like Juan comes to me and demands that I let him do gardening or else he'll deport/imprison me.
Hey, you know what else it is? Off topic!

(But regardless of whether the funds are used properly or not, taxation is still not theft.)

Every time I read one of these discussions, I read something about how terrible abortion is, how there are always regrets, emotional difficulties, mental breakdowns....

I would like to set the record straight. It is 20 years since my abortion and I have yet to experience any pang of regret or mental trauma. <snip>
Me too.

"Me too" to the rest of your post, as well.

OK, let's kill any misperceptions and misinformation dead.
<snip glorious, wonderful, refreshing facts only for length>
He's here! Mur > :hail: > TCT.

Finally. Thank the gods.

Hey, you know what else it is? Off topic!


I'm just responding to what I see... in this case your own off-topicness.

(But regardless of whether the funds are used properly or not, taxation is still not theft.)

It's not "payment for services," which is what I was saying. Here, I'll make a new thread and you can explain yourself with more than bald assertions.

I'm just responding to what I see... in this case your own off-topicness.



It's not "payment for services," which is what I was saying. Here, I'll make a new thread and you can explain yourself with more than bald assertions.
Don't bother to make a new thread. Just jump over to the Power or Love thread and explain it all to Vault 10 over there, where his vision of utopia is being discussed. He was the poster I was originally talking to anyway.

(But regardless of whether the funds are used properly or not, taxation is still not theft.)

Correct. It's extortion.

A friend of mine in England wanted an abortion, and allowed her family to pressure her out of doing it.

When her little boy was two years old, she committed suicide. The assertion that there are always repercussion of abortion ignores the fact that there are repercussions of giving birth. Which is idiotic, because the specific depression that follows a birth is so well documented that it's got it's own definition (post-partum depression) and even has a trivial name ('baby blues').

It's a spectre. It's not designed to be real or accurate, just to scare people into agreeing.

Yep, there are repercussions to both giving birth and having an abortion, and often enough serious ones. Thank you for sharing that story, that must have been hard for you.

Don't bother to make a new thread.

Too late! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564088)

Just jump over to the Power or Love thread and explain it all to Vault 10 over there, where his vision of utopia is being discussed. He was the poster I was originally talking to anyway.

Seems like he's not the one I need to explain it to. ;)

Besides it really does deserve its own thread. Muravyets, you and I, we have Conceived a new NSG life, brought it into this world, spawning it from the sweaty love of postmaking and ranting romance! It's too late to abort and I demand child support!

:p

<snip>
Seems like he's not the one I need to explain it to. ;)
Too bad you didn't "explain" jacksquat, since this is an abortion thread.

Besides it really does deserve its own thread. Muravyets, you and I, we have Conceived a new NSG life, brought it into this world, spawning it from the sweaty love of postmaking and ranting romance! It's too late to abort and I demand child support!

:p
No, it does not deserve its own thread. It was born without a brain. You should have aborted it. I will have nothing to do with the worthless thing. I deny your claim that I am in any way connected to it. Throw it in the trash where it belongs, with all the other junk.

Too bad you didn't "explain" jacksquat, since this is an abortion thread.


Yeah, I actually did. Certainly a lot more than just an assertion. What does the topic of the thread have to do with whether I explained myself? Nothing.

No, it does not deserve its own thread. It was born without a brain. You should have aborted it. I will have nothing to do with the worthless thing. I deny your claim that I am in any way connected to it. Throw it in the trash where it belongs, with all the other junk.

I think you're just afraid that it's awesome intellect will dominate and eventually overthrow the memepool of its mother's inadequate arguments. So be it, but you can't stop it now...!

Yeah, I actually did. Certainly a lot more than just an assertion. What does the topic of the thread have to do with whether I explained myself? Nothing.



I think you're just afraid that it's awesome intellect will dominate and eventually overthrow the memepool of its mother's inadequate arguments. So be it, but you can't stop it now...!
Having your own thread isn't enough? You have to continue to hijack this one? Do it without my participation.

I think you're just afraid that it's awesome intellect will dominate and eventually overthrow the memepool of its mother's inadequate arguments. So be it, but you can't stop it now...!

I'm fairly certain that anything created by you can't be defined as possessing "awesome intellect". "willful ignorance" and "nonsensical posing" perhaps is more appropriate.

I'm fairly certain that anything created by you can't be defined as possessing "awesome intellect". "willful ignorance" and "nonsensical posing" perhaps is more appropriate.

Well thank you for that utterly pointless, pathetically inadequate and patently irrelevant flame.

Well thank you for that utterly pointless, pathetically inadequate and patently irrelevant flame.

oooh SOMEONE got a thesaurus for christmas!

oooh SOMEONE got a thesaurus for christmas!

Impressive as the concept might be to you, I have what is called a "vocabulary" and don't need to refer to a thesaurus just to accurately describe the weakness, pointlessness or brainlessness of an internet flame. Would you care to try again with less fail, or are you going to refrain from continuing this threadjack?

Impressive as the concept might be to you

When you manage to impress me, I'll let you know. You got a long way to go.

When you manage to impress me, I'll let you know. You got a long way to go.

You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit what you think.

You must have me confused with someone who gives a shit what you think.

Considering all the effort you've put in to try and insult me, I'd say any confusion on this issue is yours.

Ahh, feigned ignorance, the last refuge of the beaten and dejected. Next are you going to tell me you're taking your ball and going home?

3) If the government takes your money, it does not do so with physical violence, beating you up and threatening to kill you with a gun.

I seem to be playing the devils advocate a lot tonight. Technically the government DOES threaten you with violence for non-payment, in the form of arrest and incarceration.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

If you extend that logic, you would only be able to declare a person dead once his/her last cell has died... that would be rather messy and unhygienic, not to mention pointless.

We define a person as dead once their brain is dead. By the same token, no foetus without a functioning brain can be called alive.

However, this little though excercise is completely irrelevant when it comes to abortion. After all, we do not grant ANY living person the right to use another person's body without the owner's consent. We find the very thought highly immoral and revolting.
So why make an exception for embryos?

After all, we do not grant ANY living person the right to use another person's body without the owner's consent. We find the very thought highly immoral and revolting.
So why make an exception for embryos?

because you are a dirty slut, basically.

because you are a dirty slut, basically.

But one with an independent metabolism and a functioning brain. :p

I seem to be playing the devils advocate a lot tonight. Technically the government DOES threaten you with violence for non-payment, in the form of arrest and incarceration.

THIS IS AN ABORTION THREAD.

I am officially ignoring any and all posts that are about taxes or government UNLESS they tie the issue in with abortion in a credible manner.

And for the record, I did not cause this hijack. My post and the post by Vault10 I was responding to were talking about abortion and the right to bodily integrity in the context of abortion. All the subsequent 3rd-party posts have been off topic.

I seem to be playing the devils advocate a lot tonight. Technically the government DOES threaten you with violence for non-payment, in the form of arrest and incarceration.

That would depend on the definition of the term "violent"
Mostly, "violent" refers to inflicting bodily harm, and there are next to no governments in the civilised world who would take such a course of action. Yes, they are allowed to infringe upon your fiances, and your freedom of movement. But they cannot legally harm your body in any way, shape or form.

I sometimes read comments here about politics that make my head go !klang! This was one:

...Its just hard to make that decision which is the whole point of having a government. They are the people we elect to make hard decisions.

DaWoad, if you go through life voting for people to make hard decisions for you, you are going to end up with people making decisions you don't like.

You would be better off voting for people who will, as near as possible, make the decisions you want them to.

That's the point of democratic politics - getting your views enacted.

....

But one should stick to the OP.

...I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

When life begins for the foetus is irrelevant. I would unreservedly support a woman's right to abortion regardless of its status. The foetus is the same, whether described as living or otherwise. The woman's rights are still more important.

Finally a CriNazi shows up! Time to watch some good old fashioned Liberal/Right-Wing fighting!

*makes popcorn, and sets up deckchair*

OMG! THE NSG WAR I HYPOTHESIZED IS MANIFESTING ITSELF IN THE FLESH! :eek: *runs*

That would depend on the definition of the term "violent"
Mostly, "violent" refers to inflicting bodily harm, and there are next to no governments in the civilised world who would take such a course of action.

And if you tell the nice officer that no, you aren't getting in his car there isn't going to be violence?

oooh SOMEONE got a thesaurus for christmas!

I have not laughed this hard in some time.

I seem to be playing the devils advocate a lot tonight. Technically the government DOES threaten you with violence for non-payment, in the form of arrest and incarceration.

So arrests and incarceration are violent?

Thought they had rules for the police......

And if you tell the nice officer that no, you aren't getting in his car there isn't going to be violence?

Guess you should listen to the officer.

I am not sure of your logic. It's kind of a long the lines of suggesting blacks are violent because you went into Harlem; shouted racial epitaphs and got you butt kicked.

I have not laughed this hard in some time.

Indeed! :)

because you are a dirty slut, basically.

You make it sound like that is a bad thing! ;)

And if you tell the nice officer that no, you aren't getting in his car there isn't going to be violence?

Not enough to constitute physical harm.
And if there is, you get to sue the arse of that copper.

Every time I read one of these discussions, I read something about how terrible abortion is, how there are always regrets, emotional difficulties, mental breakdowns....

I would like to set the record straight. It is 20 years since my abortion and I have yet to experience any pang of regret or mental trauma. On the contrary, I am utterly grateful to those campaigners and medical professionals who made abortion possible for me; When I woke up after the operation, I felt pure relief and still do whenever I think of it.

Abortion rights are a hugely important issue of me. The right to bodily autonomy could just as easily be termed "the right to be a person".

Carrying a pregnancy entails many restrictions and penalties - women who become mothers jeopardise their health, their reputations, their careers, their pensions, their educational opportunities, their personal dreams and hopes, their homes, their livelihoods, the security and care of their dependants and even their identities as they become "xyz's mum" or "single welfare-dependant mum who is responsible for all the evils of our society". Somehow or other, these losses are easily dismissed as "personal inconvenience" almost as if those things didn't matter in the first place.

There are many laws in western societies that have been put in place precisely to protect the above rights and needs for non-pregnant people because there is a consensus that they are fundamental to a human person's wellbeing. To say that they are just so much fluff to pregnant women, that is, to put above them the theoretical wishes of potential non-sentient parasitical entities, is to deny the personhood and place in society of pregnant women and to relegate them to a role as sub-human incubators.

It's a huge attack on anything and everything that makes you more than the sum of your anatomy and choosing abortion is as easy and as right as choosing to defend yourself against any assailant.
Quoted because it needs to be said over and over and over...

:)

I believe life begins at conception for the most part. But like I did and like many other women choose to, abort... shouldn't be jailed or fined or .. whatever. I did what I did. I made that decision, and I live with it. If I had been married and had become pregnant .. I do believe the husband should have a right to stop the abortion .. if he's wiling to take on the child and responsibilities if I don't want to. Just because the child is grown in my womb doesn't negate the father.

Gets much more tricky.. say a coup[le has been together for 5 years but never married.. should the father have a say? Yes. Again .. if the mother doesn't want.. father does.. well then you take on all responsibility.
I will have your child , cut all ties.. it's on you.

I believe life begins at conception for the most part. But like I did and like many other women choose to, abort... shouldn't be jailed or fined or .. whatever. I did what I did. I made that decision, and I live with it. If I had been married and had become pregnant .. I do believe the husband should have a right to stop the abortion .. if he's wiling to take on the child and responsibilities if I don't want to. Just because the child is grown in my womb doesn't negate the father.

Gets much more tricky.. say a coup[le has been together for 5 years but never married.. should the father have a say? Yes. Again .. if the mother doesn't want.. father does.. well then you take on all responsibility.
I will have your child , cut all ties.. it's on you.
Giving a man the right or power to make a woman bear a child? I seriously disagree, but first:

It's all well and good for you to decide that you want to make that sacrifice and run that risk in order to hand off a baby to a man, but do you think the law should be written so as to force other women to submit to the demands of the men who were the other half of their unwanted pregnancies?

In other words, are you merely stating what you would do, or are you stating what you think people in general should do or be required to do?

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.


Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.



I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

Who cares?

The quality of "living" hardly enters into my ethical considerations.

I do believe the husband should have a right to stop the abortion .. if he's wiling to take on the child and responsibilities if I don't want to. Just because the child is grown in my womb doesn't negate the father.

You're right, the fact that pregnancy occurs in your body doesn't "negate" the father.

To negate means to deny the existence of something, or to cause it to be ineffective or invalid.

The fact that the person who is pregnant gets final say about whether they remain pregnant doesn't magically erase the existence of anybody else, nor does it infringe on the rights of any adult male person who might have contributed to the pregnancy. Since no male has claim to your uterus, you're not taking anything away from any man by asserting ownership of your uterus. He still retains the exact same rights that you have: the right to control how (and if) his body will participate in reproduction. He's not being infringed upon or treated unfairly in the least.


Gets much more tricky.. say a coup[le has been together for 5 years but never married.. should the father have a say? Yes.
Why should a man's willingness to care for a born child require that a woman build him a child using her body?

It's great when a guy is prepared to be a parent to his children, don't get me wrong, but I don't see why a guy's willingness to be a daddy should lead us to conclude that women should lose the right to decide how their own bodies participate in the process.

Again .. if the mother doesn't want.. father does.. well then you take on all responsibility. I will have your child , cut all ties.. it's on you.

What's funny to me is that THIS is often portrayed as "more responsible" than getting an abortion.

You're right, the fact that pregnancy occurs in your body doesn't "negate" the father.

To negate means to deny the existence of something, or to cause it to be ineffective or invalid.

The fact that the person who is pregnant gets final say about whether they remain pregnant doesn't magically erase the existence of anybody else, nor does it infringe on the rights of any adult male person who might have contributed to the pregnancy. Since no male has claim to your uterus, you're not taking anything away from any man by asserting ownership of your uterus. He still retains the exact same rights that you have: the right to control how (and if) his body will participate in reproduction. He's not being infringed upon or treated unfairly in the least.


Why should a man's willingness to care for a born child require that a woman build him a child using her body?

It's great when a guy is prepared to be a parent to his children, don't get me wrong, but I don't see why a guy's willingness to be a daddy should lead us to conclude that women should lose the right to decide how their own bodies participate in the process.
I agree. This is why I "seriously disagree" with Naturality's comment.

What's funny to me is that THIS is often portrayed as "more responsible" than getting an abortion.
Same here. I can't help but stumble over that "it's better to abandon a born child" thing every time I read it. I can't believe that anyone really believes that it would be either more responsible or easier or less emotionally traumatic to just walk away from an existing born child than to abort a pregnancy within the first week or so.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)

I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.

Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.

I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

Obviously, there is some degree of life present at conception. I do not think that anybody really argues against that. however, is it a human life? Or is it a sacred life? Or is it a life that needs protected? These are the real questions.

I am pro-death. I like birth-control for most people except for people that are in minorities so minor that they are endangered subgroups. I view abortion as a good backup protection as part of a birth control plan.

I think that humans are overpopulated as a species and that the problem is getting worse. It is immoral to do a whole bunch of breeding in this time of overpopulation. If someone brings in more than two children into this world, they are contributing to the problem and I have no respect for you unless it is some freaky thing like triplets or whatnot.

I also love abortion because it can prevent birth defects. It is cruel to give birth to messed up kids.

I believe life begins at conception for the most part. But like I did and like many other women choose to, abort... shouldn't be jailed or fined or .. whatever. I did what I did. I made that decision, and I live with it. If I had been married and had become pregnant .. I do believe the husband should have a right to stop the abortion .. if he's wiling to take on the child and responsibilities if I don't want to. Just because the child is grown in my womb doesn't negate the father.

Gets much more tricky.. say a coup[le has been together for 5 years but never married.. should the father have a say? Yes. Again .. if the mother doesn't want.. father does.. well then you take on all responsibility.
I will have your child , cut all ties.. it's on you.

I respectfully disagree with this position. Although I do believe that men are treated unfairly in the area of reproductive rights, I do not think that this is the proper remedy.

I think that a man must never have 100% of the rights of a woman to the point where he can determine whether a woman should not have an abortion. I just do not think that anybody should be able to force anyone else to remain or become pregnant. However, if a man does not want to have a child he should be able to not have any duties to a child that the mother refused to abort or adopt.

Perhaps men should have the power to compel an abortion because there is the moral issue of bringing a bastard child into the world and overpopulation issues, but I do not believe that men should have the power to prevent an abortion.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’
Because abortion is a big hassle. Birth control is easier.
I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.
Why do people who support the right to abortion have to believe that life doesn't begin at conception.

So the embryo is alive. So what? We kill carrots all the time.

The real question is, is the embrypo sufficiently like a person to warrant our protection, and I don't see how the answr to that is yes.

Furthermore, as previously stated in this thread, even if the embryo is a full person, so is the mother, so we can use existing mechanisms to resolve disputes between them. The only problem there is one might argue that wilfully getting pregnant carries with it an obligation to care for the embryo.

But I don't think we ever get that far, because an embryo isn't relevantly like a person. It's more a like a remora.

Because abortion is a big hassle. Birth control is easier.

Why do people who support the right to abortion have to believe that life doesn't begin at conception.

So the embryo is alive. So what? We kill carrots all the time.

The real question is, is the embrypo sufficiently like a person to warrant our protection, and I don't see how the answr to that is yes.

Furthermore, as previously stated in this thread, even if the embryo is a full person, so is the mother, so we can use existing mechanisms to resolve disputes between them. The only problem there is one might argue that wilfully getting pregnant carries with it an obligation to care for the embryo.

But I don't think we ever get that far, because an embryo isn't relevantly like a person. It's more a like a remora.

Abortions are painful. Most birth control is not unpleasant at all. For example, the nova ring.

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)

I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.

Edit: This quote is against abortion, not birth control.

Clearer Edit: It was arguing that abortion is immoral because life begins at conception.


I would like to hear arguments from people who believe in abortion that life does not begin at conception.

Why do you believe it's not until conception? Each ovum could potentially be a person - you choose to deny that person life by fertilising it.

If life does not begin at ovum production, why allow women to have periods instead of fertilising every ovum?

Pro-life advocates should be arguing for abortion. It reduces the amount of infanticide.

Think about it; if abortion is difficult or impossible to obtain legally, you'll find women going to illegal abortion clinics, which tend to be dangerous for the mother; or not going to illegal abortion clinics, and performing "post-natal abortion" instead. Even in some Christian countries this happens not just regularly but systematically.

In some parts of Brazil, for example (where they're very poor and can't support extra children) the mother "diagnoses" the baby as weak, or sickly, or unable to thrive (the symptoms of this are so vague as to be able to be seen in any child) and she then neglects the baby until it is weak and sickly, and soon enough it dies. The baby is said to have been so good and innocent that God has taken it to be a little angel in Heaven, and everyone is (not so) secretly relieved.

No matter where life begins, I doubt you'd find many people disputing that babies are alive post birth*. To keep the rate of infanticide as low as possible, we need to make sure that all babies born are wanted and can be supported; and this means we need to screen out the unwanted babies. Abortion is good for this.

Contraception is even better, of course, because if you believe life begins at conception, well, contraception prevents conception. And yet fundamentalists oppose contraception! I'm sure it's perfectly valid from a theological standpoint but it's not so valid from an achieving-your-goals standpoint.

* In primitive societies where infanticide is routinely practiced they don't dispute this; they just dispute that the baby is human yet. It's not human until it gets a name, at a couple of years old - when it's unlikely to be killed by childhood diseases or by infanticide.

In primitive societies where infanticide is routinely practiced they don't dispute this; they just dispute that the baby is human yet. It's not human until it gets a name, at a couple of years old - when it's unlikely to be killed by childhood diseases or by infanticide.
This is a more defensible position than the suggestion that embryos are human. Infants aren't really that much like people. They're not self-aware, they lack relevant cognitive abilities - there are any number of ways in which an infant is unlike an adult, and those are the same characteristics in adults that we think separates adult humans from adult animals.

This is a more defensible position than the suggestion that embryos are human. Infants aren't really that much like people. They're not self-aware, they lack relevant cognitive abilities - there are any number of ways in which an infant is unlike an adult, and those are the same characteristics in adults that we think separates adult humans from adult animals.
It may be a more defensible position than the suggestin that embryos are human, but I don't think it's why the people in question make that argument. I think they make it to steel themselves emotionally for the quite high probability that their baby will die AND that they might have to let it die.

I agree with Tsaraine. Many studies conducted over many decades show that in countries where safe and reliable birth control is available to women, infant mortality, including from infanticide, reduces significantly and quickly. Add safe, reliable, available abortion to the family planning list, and the incidence of infant abandonment and infanticide reduces even more. By a lot.

What it boils down to is, if people cannot support an infant, then they cannot support an infant. Period. If resources for anyone else to support said infant are not there, then they are not there. Period. In such conditions, there is no one who would not rather abort a pregnancy than stand back and watch a baby die from neglect and/or poverty.

Pro-life advocates should be arguing for abortion. It reduces the amount of infanticide.

Think about it; if abortion is difficult or impossible to obtain legally, you'll find women going to illegal abortion clinics, which tend to be dangerous for the mother; or not going to illegal abortion clinics, and performing "post-natal abortion" instead. Even in some Christian countries this happens not just regularly but systematically.

In some parts of Brazil, for example (where they're very poor and can't support extra children) the mother "diagnoses" the baby as weak, or sickly, or unable to thrive (the symptoms of this are so vague as to be able to be seen in any child) and she then neglects the baby until it is weak and sickly, and soon enough it dies. The baby is said to have been so good and innocent that God has taken it to be a little angel in Heaven, and everyone is (not so) secretly relieved.

No matter where life begins, I doubt you'd find many people disputing that babies are alive post birth*. To keep the rate of infanticide as low as possible, we need to make sure that all babies born are wanted and can be supported; and this means we need to screen out the unwanted babies. Abortion is good for this.

Contraception is even better, of course, because if you believe life begins at conception, well, contraception prevents conception. And yet fundamentalists oppose contraception! I'm sure it's perfectly valid from a theological standpoint but it's not so valid from an achieving-your-goals standpoint.

* In primitive societies where infanticide is routinely practiced they don't dispute this; they just dispute that the baby is human yet. It's not human until it gets a name, at a couple of years old - when it's unlikely to be killed by childhood diseases or by infanticide.
While I agree with the sense of your argument, it has one problem that will keep it from connecting with the "pro-life" side of the issue: It assumes that they care about babies.

The fact that they ignore the conditions you talk about, which have been known to public health organizations for many years, along with the facts that the same faction often opposes lots of other kinds of social family support programs and that all their arguments end up being about nothing but female sexual behavior they don't like, I think all goes to show that the lives of babies barely figure in the "pro-life" argument at all.

While I agree with the sense of your argument, it has one problem that will keep it from connecting with the "pro-life" side of the issue: It assumes that they care about babies.

The fact that they ignore the conditions you talk about, which have been known to public health organizations for many years, along with the facts that the same faction often opposes lots of other kinds of social family support programs and that all their arguments end up being about nothing but female sexual behavior they don't like, I think all goes to show that the lives of babies barely figure in the "pro-life" argument at all.

So long as you can make sure the woman has to carry it, whether she wants it or not, who gives a shit what happens to it after it reaches room temperature?

‘If life does not begin at conception then why bother using birth control.’ - I forget who said this (if you know please let me know, and I don’t think these were the exact words but close enough)


I believe that life begins at conception so it is easy for me to ‘Yeah how else can this be explained?’

So, I would like to hear other thoughts on the issue, namely against quote.

Life never "begins" because it never "ends".

So long as you can make sure the woman has to carry it, whether she wants it or not, who gives a shit what happens to it after it reaches room temperature?
Yep, that seems to be pretty much the gist of their approach.

While I agree with the sense of your argument, it has one problem that will keep it from connecting with the "pro-life" side of the issue: It assumes that they care about babies.

The fact that they ignore the conditions you talk about, which have been known to public health organizations for many years, along with the facts that the same faction often opposes lots of other kinds of social family support programs and that all their arguments end up being about nothing but female sexual behavior they don't like, I think all goes to show that the lives of babies barely figure in the "pro-life" argument at all.

I think that pro-lifers are concerned about the babies. I have pro-lifer friends and they really think that abortion is murder. As a Republican I run into a few of these pro-lifer types unfortunately. Although pro-lifers are a powerful and vocal minority within the Republican Party, I do not know of anybody who is at all right of center who approves of any family social support systems (ie welfare).

I think that the idea is that abortion is bad and adoption is good. I do not think that any Republicans (I am assuming tha this is the faction you referred to) want to give a penny to any unmarried mother in the form of food stamps. I believe that my pro-life "conservatives" (Don't get me started on how I think that it is an oxymoron to be a conservative pro-lifer) believe (as do I) that government should not be in the role of doling out money to families. Where we differ is that they think that the government has a role in limiting family planning whereas I believe that family planning is something that should perhaps be encouraged but certainly not limited in any manner unless the restrictions are a safety issue such as the copper-7 issue that was forbidden by the FDA.

I am not saying that some pro life troll never said that abortions are bad because sluts should be punished with babies. I am also sure that there are some nuts out there that actually believe this. However, this view is not a mainstream view held by pro-lifers.

I think that pro-lifers are concerned about the babies. I have pro-lifer friends and they really think that abortion is murder.
How many unwanted children have they adopted? What charities for the living do they support? What political action do they take to support families and/or reform child welfare services? Do they support general social welfare programs, like food stamps, that can help make sure a family can feed all their children, now that you have forced them to have another? How about health care -- what political measures do they support to provide affordable universal health care for children in their country and/or other places? And how about as the innocent little angels grow up into their sacred little lives? Do your anti-choice friends also support universal free public education, literacy programs, job assistance programs, continuing health care programs?

Talk is cheap. It's very nice to wave the banner and shout "murder," as long as you don't have to take any responsibility for all the people you cause to be born. It's easy to be "pro-life" when you only have to be "pro" for the pregnancy and birth and forget about the "life" part.

As a Republican I run into a few of these pro-lifer types unfortunately. Although pro-lifers are a powerful and vocal minority within the Republican Party, I do not know of anybody who is at all right of center who approves of any family social support systems (ie welfare).
I have run into more than a few of them. In fact, I'd say the fact that, in the US, these issues hound and haunt us every day of every year in every state is an indication that there are more than a few.

I think that the idea is that abortion is bad and adoption is good.
A) Adoption is not a substitute for abortion. When pregnancy is the problem, adoption does absolutely nothing to address it.

B) Adoption is not good. For millions of children world-wide, "adoption" means being dumped into overloaded government or private systems that amount to little more than black holes of neglect and abuse until the child either dies or ages out.

C) To those people you are talking about who think adoption is good, I would ask again, how many children have they adopted?

I do not think that any Republicans (I am assuming tha this is the faction you referred to)
The faction I was referring to is the faction that wishes to rewrite laws to outright ban abortion or effectively block women's access to abortion to such a degree that it amounts to the same as a ban. I make no distinction between members of that faction who call themselves Republicans or anything else.

However, I agree that, at the moment in the US, people who call themselves Republicans are especially bad offenders on this matter. But they're not the only ones.

want to give a penny to any unmarried mother in the form of food stamps. I believe that my pro-life "conservatives" (Don't get me started on how I think that it is an oxymoron to be a conservative pro-lifer) believe (as do I) that government should not be in the role of doling out money to families. Where we differ is that they think that the government has a role in limiting family planning whereas I believe that family planning is something that should perhaps be encouraged but certainly not limited in any manner unless the restrictions are a safety issue such as the copper-7 issue that was forbidden by the FDA.

I am not saying that some pro life troll never said that abortions are bad because sluts should be punished with babies. I am also sure that there are some nuts out there that actually believe this. However, this view is not a mainstream view held by pro-lifers.
I disagree. I hear it often enough, from enough sources in the media and from people acknowledged to be leaders of various recognized "pro-life" groups that I do not believe it is not a widely held view.

If that is not the true face of your movement, then I would strongly urge your movement to do something about its image and who it allows to be its spokespeople. Because you all look like a bunch moralistic hypocrites now.

I am not saying that some pro life troll never said that abortions are bad because sluts should be punished with babies. I am also sure that there are some nuts out there that actually believe this. However, this view is not a mainstream view held by pro-lifers.



I think more hold this view then you think...