Biden: Life begins at conception, abortion always wrong.

[Cerpin Taxt]

You aren't strictly pronounced dead when your heart stops, else anyone who ever had a transplant would be a walking dead person.

You're pronounced dead when your brain has died, which is virtually a certainty when your heart stops in all but some exceptional cases (like transplants, for example).

Ignorance abounds.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So Joe thinks abortion is murder...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What? No. A fertilized zygote is human and is alive. An egg is alive but is not a human. A sperm is alive but is not a human. Human life begins at conception. This is a fact.

The debate is whether the zygote's right to life overrides the female's rights. If a full grown adult could somehow climb inside a woman and form a parasitic relationship with her, and the only way to stop that relationship would be to kill that adult, I guarantee it would be legal to kill that adult.

I encourage you to be very careful confusing the adjective "human," and the noun "human." Not everything that is human is a human, although this subtle yet vital distinction is one of the most abused and tortured bits of language in pro-control-womens-bodies rhetoric.

A human ovum is alive. A human sperm is alive. When they fuse, the resulting zygote is alive. There really is no "beginning of life" at conception. Beginnings are when something is observed to exist where it had not previously. None of the ovum, sperm, zygote, embryo or fetus are A human (noun). Legally, a human is a person, and persons are born. When a fetus is born, it becomes a person. (wanna guess how many posts until some numbnuts comes along and expresses his incredulity at this "magic" transformation from fetus to person?)

 

[LegendKiller]

Pro-birth, not pro-life.

"Rare
20,000 to 200,000 US cases per year"
Fairly pointless to even mention it in the context of this discussion.

My wife had 2. She was pregnant twice.

You failed biology apparently.

 

[pcgeek11]

Not in your Uterus, so.....

Made from my sperm. So...

 

[werepossum]

Although it may upset some left leaning people, there are more people in the US right now who say abortion should be illegal in most cases than those who say it should be legal in most cases.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/cnn-poll-guns-immigration-abortion-2016/

Biden's problem is not his view, but his total hypocrisy; although he thinks abortion is murder, he somehow manages to willfully ignore his morals once he leaves the church.

Still, it's better than Clinton, who doesn't think the federal government should have any limits on abortion, and thus appears okay with aborting a fetus up to the moments before its regular birth.

If a you believe that a fetus is not a living human, then it's a reasonable position to see terminating a pregnancy on the same terms as removing a benign tumor, or wisdom teeth, it's an unwanted growth in the body.

If, however, your belief (which need not be tied to any religious leaning) is that a fetus is a living human, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it has all the rights assumed to exist for all other humans, most fundamentally the right to life. Western civilization has long agreed to such fundamental rights, separate from any religion.

Believing that a life starts at conception but also stating that you're not going to impose that belief on others and tacitly allow them to kill living humans (per the belief held) effectively forces there to be a class of humans for which it is acceptable for others to believe they have to right to kill members of that class at will.

Someone holding such a position is a truly vile person, a spineless, mealy-mouthed, failure of a human; one so craven that they lack the courage to stand up and speak out when they believe that thousands of helpless people are being murdered.

Even if I don't agree with the pro-life position I can at least respect that from their point of view they sincerely believe they are working to stop the deaths of people unable to speak for themselves. That is at least a rational and humane position.

I do not believe his position is either hypocritical nor vile. One can (and in fact should) recognize that a fetus is a living, unique human being without forgetting that the mother also has rights. Insisting that a woman bring to term an unwanted pregnancy is not much different from insisting that she give up a kidney or part of her liver to save someone else.

Everyone needs to understand that sometimes we don't get a right choice and a wrong choice. Sometimes all our options are bad in some way.

 

[Jhhnn]

So... Joe draws a distinction between personal belief & public policy?

You know- he makes the not so subtle distinction between running his own life & running everybody else's.

Horrifying.

It's like believing that drugs are bad but people shouldn't be throw in prison for using them. Or believing that gun ownership creates more harm than good but that it's people's right to have them. Or believing that people have the right to own an empty house when there are homeless.

It's a reflection of non- control freak ideology, of the nunya principle.

What's that? It's nunya business, assholes. It's the price of living in a free society.

 

[sandorski]

Made from my sperm. So...

Not in your Uterus, so...

 

[MagickMan]

They only eat the parts they cant sell.

This can't be true because liberals eat fetuses that they acquire at abortion complexes.

On a more serious note, conservatives should take note that just because you fear God doesn't mean you should use power of government to impose your fear of God on others.

there's always a small grain of truth... :hmm:

 

[MagickMan]

I think we need to elect people who don't have opinions that 14 year old children who took a sex ed class in an actual progressive country already understand is factually wrong.

A slam from TheSlamma, only a fool would believe religious idiots can be separated from their dogma.

 

[dank69]

How can you guarantee that?

Be specific.

Because it is legal to kill someone in self defense?

 

[dank69]

I encourage you to be very careful confusing the adjective "human," and the noun "human." Not everything that is human is a human, although this subtle yet vital distinction is one of the most abused and tortured bits of language in pro-control-womens-bodies rhetoric.

A human ovum is alive. A human sperm is alive. When they fuse, the resulting zygote is alive. There really is no "beginning of life" at conception. Beginnings are when something is observed to exist where it had not previously. None of the ovum, sperm, zygote, embryo or fetus are A human (noun). Legally, a human is a person, and persons are born. When a fetus is born, it becomes a person. (wanna guess how many posts until some numbnuts comes along and expresses his incredulity at this "magic" transformation from fetus to person?)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did mean that the zygote is human life, as in it is alive and has human DNA. I wouldn't call it a person, of course.

 

[trenchfoot]

I do not believe his position is either hypocritical nor vile. One can (and in fact should) recognize that a fetus is a living, unique human being without forgetting that the mother also has rights. Insisting that a woman bring to term an unwanted pregnancy is not much different from insisting that she give up a kidney or part of her liver to save someone else.

Everyone needs to understand that sometimes we don't get a right choice and a wrong choice. Sometimes all our options are bad in some way.

Well said, sir.:thumbsup:

 

[nakedfrog]

I can play this game too:

I want to get rid of my two year old, because I cannot afford to feed him/her.

Is it your child?
No.
Therefore, it's none of your concern, nor your business.

Well, you can give it up for adoption, what do I care?

My wife had 2. She was pregnant twice.

You failed biology apparently.

What the hell? Your wife had two rare ectopic pregnancies, so I failed biology? Can you draw a line that connects these statements in a logical fashion?

Not in your Uterus, so...

There's also this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did mean that the zygote is human life, as in it is alive and has human DNA. I wouldn't call it a person, of course.

Yes, indeed. That is all correct. The only thing you said that I took issue with is the idea that "human life begins at conception" or at any point in the human reproductive process really.

If life ever had a beginning, it would've been some many millions or billions of years ago. Biological reproduction is a continuation of life, or a propagation of life.

 

[dank69]

Yes, indeed. That is all correct. The only thing you said that I took issue with is the idea that "human life begins at conception" or at any point in the human reproductive process really.

If life ever had a beginning, it would've been some many millions or billions of years ago. Biological reproduction is a continuation of life, or a propagation of life.

I meant it more as "a human life begins at conception."

 

[Greenman]

Yes, indeed. That is all correct. The only thing you said that I took issue with is the idea that "human life begins at conception" or at any point in the human reproductive process really.

If life ever had a beginning, it would've been some many millions or billions of years ago. Biological reproduction is a continuation of life, or a propagation of life.

Not in the context of this discussion. We're talking about when some cells become a human being, more specifically, when those cells attain human rights. What we're really looking for is a definition, a point at which we can say the cells in question have attained the right to life and liberty. Calling this a continuation of life only muddy's the trail.

 

[mect]

I do not believe his position is either hypocritical nor vile. One can (and in fact should) recognize that a fetus is a living, unique human being without forgetting that the mother also has rights. Insisting that a woman bring to term an unwanted pregnancy is not much different from insisting that she give up a kidney or part of her liver to save someone else.

Everyone needs to understand that sometimes we don't get a right choice and a wrong choice. Sometimes all our options are bad in some way.

I've always felt the kidney transplant is a great example. I think the example can be more closely correlated by using some hypotheticals. Imagine that the mother is the only one that can donate the kidney to her child. Furthermore, imagine the child needs the kidney transplant due to neglectful parenting. This is the closest example I can consider for considering abortion rights weighed against those of a fetus valued as morally equivalent to a human.

Even then, I agree it seems unethical by force of law to make the woman donate the kidney. At the same time, anyone unwilling to do so seams like the most reprehensible of people.

Now the other part of the issue is it doesn't seem rational that a fertilized egg would immediately transition from no moral value to human life moral value simply because the sperm and egg are joined. Nor does it make sense that an unborn fetus about to be delivered transitions from a state of no moral value to full human value merely by going through the birth process. So it would seem that there is some continuum linking the moral value of the initially fertilized egg to that of the newborn baby. What this curve would look like, I have no idea. There probably are some critical points along the way. However, one thing is clear. The earlier the abortion, the better.

Returning to the kidney analogy, if we can abort early enough in the pregnancy, this would indicate the mother being able to keep her kidney with no one being affected, allowing morality to be maintained from both the perspective of the mothers rights as well as from the perspective of the rights of the fetus. The only challenge remaining is then agreeing upon where in that timeline the moral value of the fetus approaches that of a born child.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not in the context of this discussion. We're talking about when some cells become a human being, more specifically, when those cells attain human rights. What we're really looking for is a definition, a point at which we can say the cells in question have attained the right to life and liberty. Calling this a continuation of life only muddy's the trail.

No, it doesn't. It accurately reflects reality. There is no profit to distorting our language to deny the reality.

I repeat myself, thusly, and like so...

Legally, a human is a person, and persons are born. When a fetus is born, it becomes a person.

 

[werepossum]

I've always felt the kidney transplant is a great example. I think the example can be more closely correlated by using some hypotheticals. Imagine that the mother is the only one that can donate the kidney to her child. Furthermore, imagine the child needs the kidney transplant due to neglectful parenting. This is the closest example I can consider for considering abortion rights weighed against those of a fetus valued as morally equivalent to a human.

Even then, I agree it seems unethical by force of law to make the woman donate the kidney. At the same time, anyone unwilling to do so seams like the most reprehensible of people.

Now the other part of the issue is it doesn't seem rational that a fertilized egg would immediately transition from no moral value to human life moral value simply because the sperm and egg are joined. Nor does it make sense that an unborn fetus about to be delivered transitions from a state of no moral value to full human value merely by going through the birth process. So it would seem that there is some continuum linking the moral value of the initially fertilized egg to that of the newborn baby. What this curve would look like, I have no idea. There probably are some critical points along the way. However, one thing is clear. The earlier the abortion, the better.

Returning to the kidney analogy, if we can abort early enough in the pregnancy, this would indicate the mother being able to keep her kidney with no one being affected, allowing morality to be maintained from both the perspective of the mothers rights as well as from the perspective of the rights of the fetus. The only challenge remaining is then agreeing upon where in that timeline the moral value of the fetus approaches that of a born child.

I too would not touch such a curve, although for myself it concerns mostly when a baby is viable outside the womb. I can see replacing abortion with delivery via C-section when a baby is viable, until that point I think it has to be the mother's conscience. I remain grateful though that I have no need to make such a determination.

And frankly, I think we need more politicians willing to express controversial opinions without wanting to enforce their views with the armed might of the federal government.

 

[dank69]

No, it doesn't. It accurately reflects reality. There is no profit to distorting our language to deny the reality.

I repeat myself, thusly, and like so...

I think the woman's intent has a lot to do with the rights of the fetus as well. Ask any woman that is intentionally pregnant if their fetus is a person and most would think yes, I would guess. I know people have been convicted of double murder when a fetus is involved. A lot of retards have trouble with this because they see this as a double standard, but intent certainly matters. Again, it all boils down to a woman having control over her body. The fetus's right to life does not trump that.

 

[bshole]

I think the woman's intent has a lot to do with the rights of the fetus as well. Ask any woman that is intentionally pregnant if their fetus is a person and most would think yes, I would guess. I know people have been convicted of double murder when a fetus is involved. A lot of retards have trouble with this because they see this as a double standard, but intent certainly matters. Again, it all boils down to a woman having control over her body. The fetus's right to life does not trump that.

It should NOT be double murder. It should be an assault on the woman's body. The baby does NOT count as a human being until it is living outside of the woman's body. You are being inconsistent.

Laws like this are a first step towards banning abortion. Humans do not derive their humanity from the "intent" of others. That is just silly.

 

[dank69]

It should NOT be double murder. It should be an assault on the woman's body. The baby does NOT count as a human being until it is living outside of the woman's body. You are being inconsistent.

Laws like this are a first step towards banning abortion. Humans do not derive their humanity from the "intent" of others. That is just silly.

Tell that to a couple that has lost their fetus due to a miscarriage or stillbirth.

 

[werepossum]

It should NOT be double murder. It should be an assault on the woman's body. The baby does NOT count as a human being until it is living outside of the woman's body. You are being inconsistent.

Laws like this are a first step towards banning abortion. Humans do not derive their humanity from the "intent" of others. That is just silly.

Disagree. We can recognize that the baby is in fact a baby without imposing any requirement that its rights supercede the mother's rights. Otherwise punching a pregnant woman in the stomach and causing death to her baby would be no more than simple battery.

 

[MajinCry]

I think someone posted this vidya of Bill Nye in one of the other abortion threads, so why not have it 'ere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg