Abortion

[Danoff]

Nicely done FK. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Nicely done FK. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. 👍

I will tip my first beer tonight, an hour from now, to you for a job well done.

 

[Danoff]

It is not the government's job to enforce morals, they are for each man (or woman) to decide for himself, it is the government's job to protect the people, and serve them.
It is the government's job to stop people from harming others, etc.

So where does that leave abortion? With Science.
Science says it is not a human being until a certain age, and that is what the government should go by. Not religion, not moral, but whether or not it is a human being. If it is a human being, it is murder.
Science says it is not a human being, for many reasons.

Whether anyone personally likes it, abortion should be legal, and the government should have no say in who/when/where does it. (notice I excluded "how")

I'd like to ask the board: At what point is it a human being? egg? sperm? egg/sperm contact? positive pregnancy test? natural departure from mother's womb?

...

 

[UnoMOTO]

I'd like to ask the board: At what point is it a human being? egg? sperm? egg/sperm contact? positive pregnancy test? natural departure from mother's womb?

Thats easy enough. Life begins with the first cell splits in Two.

 

[Deathclown66]

Thats easy enough. Life begins with the first cell splits in Two.

That was originally my post, so I'll say, I don't know when that happens.
Has a sperm already done this? because they move, no? Sperm are alive, so is masturbation murder?

 

[UnoMOTO]

That was originally my post, so I'll say, I don't know when that happens.
Has a sperm already done this? because they move, no? Sperm are alive, so is masturbation murder?

No....your missing half the ingrediants for life. No serial murder trial for you eh.

 

[Danoff]

No....your missing half the ingrediants for life. No serial murder trial for you eh.

Not quite right. Sperm is missing the ingredients for HUMAN life - which means masturbation is not murder.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Not quite right. Sperm is missing the ingredients for HUMAN life - which means masturbation is not murder.

Isn't that what I just said? Are we typing in the same language?

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that what I just said? Are we typing in the same language?

You left out the word in all caps.

 

[Deathclown66]

so we have.......non....human... life, living inside us humans..... hmmmm....
I guess it depends on your definition of "human"

 

[Danoff]

so we have.......non....human... life, living inside us humans..... hmmmm....
I guess it depends on your definition of "human"

I don't define a sperm as a human that's for sure. Just like I don't define a skin cell as a human, a heart as a human or someone's tumor as a human.

If you define sperm and skin cells as humans then you're committing murder by masturbating or taking a shower (maybe both at once).

But the definition of human is what the abortion debate is all about.

 

[ledhed]

Hey a resurrection ...must be a religion thread .

 

[ledhed]

Not quite right. Sperm is missing the ingredients for HUMAN life - which means masturbation is not murder.

It is if your taking blood pressure meds.

 

[Gabkicks]

imagine if all these people on both sides put all of that time and energy they put into riots and protests into educating their kids so that they dont get unwanted pregnancies...

Most women find it hard to talk about miscarriages... so imagine how hard abortions are for them.

 

[Wenders]

imagine if all these people on both sides put all of that time and energy they put into riots and protests into educating their kids so that they dont get unwanted pregnancies...

Most women find it hard to talk about miscarriages... so imagine how hard abortions are for them.

I had two miscarriages, I have no problems talking about them. Miscarriage and abortion aren't the same thing. You don't choose to miscarry and usually in that situation you have chosen to become pregnant so its natural that you will be upset at the time and for some time afterwards pretty much until you can fall pregnant again.

 

[Deathclown66]

I don't define a sperm as a human that's for sure. Just like I don't define a skin cell as a human, a heart as a human or someone's tumor as a human.

If you define sperm and skin cells as humans then you're committing murder by masturbating or taking a shower (maybe both at once).

But the definition of human is what the abortion debate is all about.

Is a heart a human? No.
Is a heart human? Yes.
Is a sperm a human? No.
Is a sperm human? Yes.

Logically, there are very few options as to what is A human, and what is just human.
If you consider it as soon as the cell split, than morning after pills would be murder, right?

I honestly don't believe that, no matter what religion you have, that anybody believes a week after the cell split, there is a baby with a brain, and heart, and soul in there. because it has no brain or heart. So why/how could it have a soul?
So then you have to guess when it happens.
Guessing + Religeous people = very bad things.

I hear many people say, "Because it's there, and it's going to be a baby". If that's anyone's reasoning, then pulling out is attempted murder, at the least.
in fact, everytime you try to keep sperm and eggs away from each other, when it's "supposed to happen", it's attempted murder, and the prosecution will rest the murder charges, for lack of evidence.

So why is abortion murder? Because if you don't stop it, it will be a baby? because it already is? But if you constantly have unprotected sex, you know (other than a few), that you WILL make a baby. Therefore contraceptives of all kinds, and even the ol' pull out, are all just as murderous as an abortion, because you're preventive what was already on the way.

How is it, that religeous people can try to use science, and then argue against it like hell the next day?

The fact of life here, is that some people change their religions, and beliefs, to fit every situation as needed.

P.S. For the record, partial birth abortions are sick, disgusting, and should be murder, IMO.

 

[ledhed]

This is MY argument for abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BScc2dFpJg

 

[FoolKiller]

Is a heart human? Yes.
Is a sperm human? Yes.

Or dog, cat, elephant, horse, fish, snake , frog, etc. I will assume you are referring to a human sperm though.

If you consider it as soon as the cell split, than morning after pills would be murder, right?

Wrong. Morning after pills prevent the fertilized egg, not yet split, from attaching itself to the uterine wall, where it fails to develop further. It has yet to begin the life processes. It is the same thing birth control pills do, only in a huge, sudden, last minute dose.

Now, there is the "abortion pill" (RU486?) that will cause the developing fetus to be discharged in a miscarriage like action. That is the best I can describe it not knowing the full details.

I honestly don't believe that, no matter what religion you have, that anybody believes a week after the cell split, there is a baby with a brain, and heart, and soul in there. because it has no brain or heart. So why/how could it have a soul?

I'm going to assume you have full knowledge of souls and how they work in order to answer this question in any way? No one does which then leads to:

So then you have to guess when it happens.

But that does not necessarily mean:

Guessing + Religeous people = very bad things.

It has a lot to do with faith. But because it is a lot of guesswork based on feelings and interpretations of texts I do not wish to ever impose religious based laws.

I hear many people say, "Because it's there, and it's going to be a baby". If that's anyone's reasoning, then pulling out is attempted murder, at the least.
in fact, everytime you try to keep sperm and eggs away from each other, when it's "supposed to happen", it's attempted murder, and the prosecution will rest the murder charges, for lack of evidence.

How is claiming that a multi-cellular developing human with a full DNA structure is a human comparable to claiming that a single-celled part of the parent with only half the required chromosomes to create a human a human? As I see it a fetus is a developing human and a sperm or egg is actually a part of a parent.

So why is abortion murder? Because if you don't stop it, it will be a baby? because it already is? But if you constantly have unprotected sex, you know (other than a few), that you WILL make a baby. Therefore contraceptives of all kinds, and even the ol' pull out, are all just as murderous as an abortion, because you're preventive what was already on the way.

I believe I answered this above.

How is it, that religeous people can try to use science, and then argue against it like hell the next day?

I am beginning to get the feeling that you think only religious people can be in the pro-life camp.

The fact of life here, is that some people change their religions, and beliefs, to fit every situation as needed.

I dare you to find where I have done that.

P.S. For the record, partial birth abortions are sick, disgusting, and should be murder, IMO.

What makes this different?

so we have.......non....human... life, living inside us humans..... hmmmm....
I guess it depends on your definition of "human"

Look into microbiology. You may be truly frightened by what non-human life is living inside of your body. Face mites alone are enough to make you sick, but when you get into parasites and other things that pass through your body on a regular basis you may fiund yourself truly disturbed.

But, as for sperm or eggs, I don't consider them human any more than I consider my breakfast eggs to be chicken.

 

[ledhed]

Or dog, cat, elephant, horse, fish, snake , frog, etc. I will assume you are referring to a human sperm though.


Wrong. Morning after pills prevent the fertilized egg, not yet split, from attaching itself to the uterine wall, where it fails to develop further. It has yet to begin the life processes. It is the same thing birth control pills do, only in a huge, sudden, last minute dose.

Now, there is the "abortion pill" (RU486?) that will cause the developing fetus to be discharged in a miscarriage like action. That is the best I can describe it not knowing the full details.


I'm going to assume you have full knowledge of souls and how they work in order to answer this question in any way? No one does which then leads to:

But that does not necessarily mean:

It has a lot to do with faith. But because it is a lot of guesswork based on feelings and interpretations of texts I do not wish to ever impose religious based laws.


How is claiming that a multi-cellular developing human with a full DNA structure is a human comparable to claiming that a single-celled part of the parent with only half the required chromosomes to create a human a human? As I see it a fetus is a developing human and a sperm or egg is actually a part of a parent.


I believe I answered this above.


I am beginning to get the feeling that you think only religious people can be in the pro-life camp.


I dare you to find where I have done that.


What makes this different?


Look into microbiology. You may be truly frightened by what non-human life is living inside of your body. Face mites alone are enough to make you sick, but when you get into parasites and other things that pass through your body on a regular basis you may fiund yourself truly disturbed.

But, as for sperm or eggs, I don't consider them human any more than I consider my breakfast eggs to be chicken.

spam and eggs ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ7YedEopp4 ???

 

[Danoff]

Is a heart a human? No.
Is a heart human? Yes.
Is a sperm a human? No.
Is a sperm human? Yes.

For the purposes of this discussion, only something that is a human matters. Human tissue, organs, cells, do not get rights. If you pick up a human skin cell off of someone's desk and stomp on it, you don't go to jail for killing a skin cell. So it's not really important to the discussion.

What IS important to the discussion is the definition of a human, which sperm is most definitely not.

Ergo, therefore, it must follow that, consequently, one is forced to conclude that, masturbation is not murder.

Q.E.D.

 

[Deathclown66]

Or dog, cat, elephant, horse, fish, snake , frog, etc. I will assume you are referring to a human sperm though.

Well done.

Wrong. Morning after pills prevent the fertilized egg, not yet split, from attaching itself to the uterine wall, where it fails to develop further. It has yet to begin the life processes. It is the same thing birth control pills do, only in a huge, sudden, last minute dose.

ok.

Now, there is the "abortion pill" (RU486?) that will cause the developing fetus to be discharged in a miscarriage like action. That is the best I can describe it not knowing the full details.

Ok, what's this here for?

I'm going to assume you have full knowledge of souls and how they work in order to answer this question in any way? No one does which then leads to:

What if I don't believe in souls?

It has a lot to do with faith. But because it is a lot of guesswork based on feelings and interpretations of texts I do not wish to ever impose religious based laws.

Good, because it is should never happen.

How is claiming that a multi-cellular developing human with a full DNA structure is a human comparable to claiming that a single-celled part of the parent with only half the required chromosomes to create a human a human? As I see it a fetus is a developing human and a sperm or egg is actually a part of a parent.

You have a point. But I just don't believe that a 2wk old fetus is really a person yet. even if biologically they have a dna structure.

I am beginning to get the feeling that you think only religious people can be in the pro-life camp.

nope. but it is common.

I dare you to find where I have done that.

Never accused you of such a thing.

What makes this different?

Because, they suck a brain out with a vaccum, essentially, from what I've been told.

Look into microbiology. You may be truly frightened by what non-human life is living inside of your body. Face mites alone are enough to make you sick, but when you get into parasites and other things that pass through your body on a regular basis you may fiund yourself truly disturbed.

Nope, I'll just pop any pimple that may arise, and move on about my day.

But, as for sperm or eggs, I don't consider them human any more than I consider my breakfast eggs to be chicken.

I actually do. I never eat eggs without thinking, "hey, that would've been a baby chick, haha". "Hey, that's kinda weird"......"hmmmm"... "oh well"
I'm serious about that.

 

[Danoff]

Pro-lifers feel that abortion should be illegal because it is essentially the murder of a human being.

Pro-choicers feel that abortion should be legal because the fetus is not a developed human being, and there is a conflict of rights with the mother.

Neither side thinks that sperm or eggs are human beings, meaning they have no rights.

One might think that this means that all that needs to be done is to figure out what the proper definition of a human being is to figure out whether abortion should be legal or illegal. But this would be an oversimplification. We don't afford a full set of rights to lots of humans. Some of these humans are permanently incapacitated - and are removed of their rights as life support is pulled. Some humans are insane, and are robbed of their right to freedom as they're incarcerated in an insane asylum. Other humans are removed of their right to life on death row as they're executed.

We don't give humans rights simply because they have the right DNA code. That would be hypocritical and would require a proper evaluation of animal rights as well. Can you imagine giving a skunk the right to vote? We give human beings rights because of their mental capacity. We remove those rights (to varying degrees) when people prove that they are incapable of (varying degrees of) that mental capacity.

Fetuses do not have the mental capacity of a dog. Neither do infants for that matter. Does that mean we should give dogs the right to life? Does that mean that we've committed murder when we run over our neighbors dog?

Obviously not. But there's more. We offer adults rights over their body and property even before they become adults because we know they will develop into adults. Harming a fetus (like drinking while pregnant or refusing to feed it enough etc. etc.) is the same thing as harming a child in advance that eventually will have the brain capacity to afford it a full suite of rights.

If you deform a fetus, and then let it grow to be 8, you've committed a crime against that 8 year old, even though you did it before the child was 8.

But what if the child never makes it to 8? Then you've never harmed someone with the brain capacity to afford it rights. That's abortion. You've prevented the legal entity - the human with enough brain power to have rights - from ever existing.

So where do we draw the line? 2 years old? 4?

I say we draw the line at birth. It's too early obviously, they still don't have the brain capacity of lots of animals we don't give rights to. But once they're born their rights no longer conflict with the mother. Essentially, it doesn't harm anyone to give the child rights at that point. So even though it's early from a theoretical point of view, it works out really well from a practical point of view.

Hey what do you know? That's the system we have right now!! Yay! We don't have to change anything.

 

[Zrow]

I disagree. I think a lot of people (including me) hold a child that isn't out of the mother's womb, but still fully developed, to be a legitimate child that has the right to live like anyone. I'd even go so far as to say it's completely obvious. Yes, it's still attached to the mother through the umbilical cord, but we're not talking about something like her arm or her leg - it's an entirely different category, considering that it's a person.

The main argument seems to be "mother's right to her own body", but how can you ignore the other life in the equation?

 

[ledhed]

I disagree. I think a lot of people (including me) hold a child that isn't out of the mother's womb, but still fully developed, to be a legitimate child that has the right to live like anyone. I'd even go so far as to say it's completely obvious. Yes, it's still attached to the mother through the umbilical cord, but we're not talking about something like her arm or her leg - it's an entirely different category, considering that it's a person.

The main argument seems to be "mother's right to her own body", but how can you ignore the other life in the equation?

I consider it a child after 6 months ...before that I support " choice " after that I support only if the Mothers life is in danger.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok, what's this here for?

I was just contrasting the difference between the morning after pill and "abortion pill." These two are constantly confused so I am always quick to distinguish them from one another.

What if I don't believe in souls?

Well, you were questioning how anyone would know what criteria/what development stage is required for something to have a soul. I was just tryingto make the point that you wouldn't know any better than anyone else.

Good, because it is should never happen.

You will find that I am quite a reasonable Christian and for the most part keep my beliefs to myself. I'm not about to impose them on anyone. In fact, I rarely mention the fact that I am a Christian.

You have a point. But I just don't believe that a 2wk old fetus is really a person yet. even if biologically they have a dna structure.

But the question is: When do we determine this? Danoff makes such a compelling argument based on rights that it is hard to disagree with him. I tried for five pages and we just came to a truce that we will never see it each other's way. So, where do you feel the line should be drawn?

nope. but it is common.

Never accused you of such a thing.

I'm just establishing the difference between myself and the stereotype.

Nope, I'll just pop any pimple that may arise, and move on about my day.

Some times I have to ask myself why I even bothered watching the Discovery Channel.

I actually do. I never eat eggs without thinking, "hey, that would've been a baby chick, haha". "Hey, that's kinda weird"......"hmmmm"... "oh well"
I'm serious about that.

What if it is an unfertilizd egg? Then it is just a slimey conglomeration of proteins and whatnot (tastey proteins I might add).

Because, they suck a brain out with a vaccum, essentially, from what I've been told.

I consider it a child after 6 months ...before that I support " choice " after that I support only if the Mothers life is in danger.

Here you have both drawn a line, but why? Because it now has a brain and pumping heart? Just curious.

As Danoff pointed out we each draw our own arbitrary line for our own individual reasons, which is why this argument will go on and on without any sort of conclusion. The only people that can completely agree with one another are the people who use religious reasoning.

I'm not trying to lump all of them together because they definitely take differing attitudes towards it, but their reasoning and arbitrary lines are all the same.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree. I think a lot of people (including me) hold a child that isn't out of the mother's womb, but still fully developed, to be a legitimate child that has the right to live like anyone. I'd even go so far as to say it's completely obvious. Yes, it's still attached to the mother through the umbilical cord, but we're not talking about something like her arm or her leg - it's an entirely different category, considering that it's a person.

The main argument seems to be "mother's right to her own body", but how can you ignore the other life in the equation?

I consider it a child after 6 months ...before that I support " choice " after that I support only if the Mothers life is in danger.

I actually gave a philosophical and practical reason for where my line is drawn. Do you guys have anything to back up your reasoning or do you just feel iky about it?

 

[Deathclown66]

Me: Pro Choice.
Mother's right of body? absolute bull-.

 

[ledhed]

I actually gave a philosophical and practical reason for where my line is drawn. Do you guys have anything to back up your reasoning or do you just feel iky about it?

Mine is an easy one..can the Child think ? is the Brain developed enough to form a thought ? Can the Child survive outside the womb ?

If the answer is yes than that child deserves every human right available to those of us not still attached to an umbilical cord. This is the point where choice is now changed to responsibility.


An Abortion at that point is either the MURDER or the sacrifice of a human life.

In the case of saving the mother I see difference from making a choice between co joined twins ..ethicly one must die so the other may live .
If the mother could survive while she brought the baby to term and decided the baby was worth more than her own life SO BE IT . it is her choice ...if she decides the other way ..SO BE IT , it is her choice.

But to capriciously decide to terminate a living person because of changing circumstance or any other NON life threatening reason is simple MURDER according to my ethics and moral reasoning .

 

[Deathclown66]

Mine is an easy one..can the Child think ? is the Brain developed enough to form a thought ? Can the Child survive outside the womb ?

If the answer is yes than that child deserves every human right available to those of us not still attached to an umbilical cord. This is the point where choice is now changed to responsibility.


An Abortion at that point is either the MURDER or the sacrifice of a human life.

In the case of saving the mother I see difference from making a choice between co joined twins ..ethicly one must die so the other may live .
If the mother could survive while she brought the baby to term and decided the baby was worth more than her own life SO BE IT . it is her choice ...if she decides the other way ..SO BE IT , it is her choice.

But to capriciously decide to terminate a living person because of changing circumstance or any other NON life threatening reason is simple MURDER according to my ethics and moral reasoning .

If you're saying it's murder once the child is old enough to survive outside the womb, I agree.

I just don't see two weeks after conception as a person yet.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Let's see. Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. That seems simple enough to me. Just because you can't put a condom on or use birth control doesn't mean you should be able to slice a fetus to death with a coathanger.

If you're raped, I believe it is very rare that you will be impregnated as a result of the shock to your system. This may just be a fallacy but it makes sense to me. Someone please inform me if I'm wrong. In the cases where you are pregnant post-rape, you should be able to vacuum the fetus out of your womb as long as it is done within the first month after the rape. They do use a vacuum, right?

On the other hand, it may be better if the baby were born and set up with a foster family. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if I were aborted. I know there would be no way of knowing that, but you get the idea I hope.

Uh, you're an idiot. Don't you realize things aren't as cut-and-dry as you say? Why should a poor woman be forced to bring a baby that she can't support into the world? Seriously, think next time. There is no benefit to anyone involved if a poor black woman in Harlem gets pregnant and then she can't get an abortion because it's illegal. Abortion saves the woman's life, it prevents the unborn child from living an incredibly hard life that will most likely end up in crime.

The foster system is a joke, dude. Don't even.