WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
A lot of folks in this thread have basically assumed that, (it is an assumption as I believe an argument could be made that a human ovum and sperm are both alive before conception)
The other assumption that goes along with the human life argument and the one that is the controversial part is that human life at that stage deserves equal protection with a 1 day old or 50 year old.
If we take those assumption and logically apply them rigidly as law, several very scary ramifications become evident.
Following that logic you can no longer allow abortion for rape or incest as the "child" is not at fault and the state would have to protect it as it's human life. I believe folks like Cylcowizard have made that argument before.
In the extreme case women lose their liberty to the state in cases of rape or incest. The worst example would be that a minor is raped and forced to carry the "child" by the state, to term but experiences medical problems such as a detached placenta resulting in the death of the mother and baby. Maybe the rapist could be tried for manslaughter/murder in that case
The other scary ramification is that most couples do not conceive on the first attempt. Aprox 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus. If you believe that human life begins at conception AND it has the same rights a child then just about every one who has ever had a child has accidentally killed multiple "children" in the failed attempts. The state would then be forced to incarcerate most of the population for child endangerment and or manslaughter.
I for one don't want to believe that this is the right way to view the situation, but if you follow the logical from these initial assumptions that's what you get.
Originally posted by: hellokeith at 07/06/2008 01:24 AM
If you believe human life begins at conception and/or embryo attachment to the uterine wall, then you must follow through with that belief and assign the conceptus/attached emybro full "minor child" rights which of course means all abortions are illegal in any circumstance.
Of course I don't disagree that a teen girl being raped by her perverted father which results in a pregnancy is a terribly awful and trammatic thing. But nevertheless, destroying the conceptus/attached emybro is robbing its right to live, and I do believe a vast majority of the authors of our Constitution would agree. Or if you like, in more simplistic terms, one evil is not corrected by doing another evil.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
A lot of folks in this thread have basically assumed that, (it is an assumption as I believe an argument could be made that a human ovum and sperm are both alive before conception)
The other assumption that goes along with the human life argument and the one that is the controversial part is that human life at that stage deserves equal protection with a 1 day old or 50 year old.
If we take those assumption and logically apply them rigidly as law, several very scary ramifications become evident.
Following that logic you can no longer allow abortion for rape or incest as the "child" is not at fault and the state would have to protect it as it's human life. I believe folks like Cylcowizard have made that argument before.
In the extreme case women lose their liberty to the state in cases of rape or incest. The worst example would be that a minor is raped and forced to carry the "child" by the state, to term but experiences medical problems such as a detached placenta resulting in the death of the mother and baby. Maybe the rapist could be tried for manslaughter/murder in that case
The other scary ramification is that most couples do not conceive on the first attempt. Aprox 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus. If you believe that human life begins at conception AND it has the same rights a child then just about every one who has ever had a child has accidentally killed multiple "children" in the failed attempts. The state would then be forced to incarcerate most of the population for child endangerment and or manslaughter.
I for one don't want to believe that this is the right way to view the situation, but if you follow the logical from these initial assumptions that's what you get.
scroll down towards the bottom to read my full posting
Originally posted by: hellokeith at 07/06/2008 01:24 AM
If you believe human life begins at conception and/or embryo attachment to the uterine wall, then you must follow through with that belief and assign the conceptus/attached emybro full "minor child" rights which of course means all abortions are illegal in any circumstance.
Of course I don't disagree that a teen girl being raped by her perverted father which results in a pregnancy is a terribly awful and trammatic thing. But nevertheless, destroying the conceptus/attached emybro is robbing its right to live, and I do believe a vast majority of the authors of our Constitution would agree. Or if you like, in more simplistic terms, one evil is not corrected by doing another evil.
Also, attachment occurs 6 days after conception. I and many others will gladly compromise and agree with you that human life begins at attachment, if we can get that in writing (aka legislation).
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Is a fetus a human being? George Carlin to the rescue!
The answer: Of course not you crazy idiots.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
A lot of folks in this thread have basically assumed that, (it is an assumption as I believe an argument could be made that a human ovum and sperm are both alive before conception)
The other assumption that goes along with the human life argument and the one that is the controversial part is that human life at that stage deserves equal protection with a 1 day old or 50 year old.
If we take those assumption and logically apply them rigidly as law, several very scary ramifications become evident.
Following that logic you can no longer allow abortion for rape or incest as the "child" is not at fault and the state would have to protect it as it's human life. I believe folks like Cylcowizard have made that argument before.
In the extreme case women lose their liberty to the state in cases of rape or incest. The worst example would be that a minor is raped and forced to carry the "child" by the state, to term but experiences medical problems such as a detached placenta resulting in the death of the mother and baby. Maybe the rapist could be tried for manslaughter/murder in that case
The other scary ramification is that most couples do not conceive on the first attempt. Aprox 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus. If you believe that human life begins at conception AND it has the same rights a child then just about every one who has ever had a child has accidentally killed multiple "children" in the failed attempts. The state would then be forced to incarcerate most of the population for child endangerment and or manslaughter.
I for one don't want to believe that this is the right way to view the situation, but if you follow the logical from these initial assumptions that's what you get.
scroll down towards the bottom to read my full posting
Originally posted by: hellokeith at 07/06/2008 01:24 AM
If you believe human life begins at conception and/or embryo attachment to the uterine wall, then you must follow through with that belief and assign the conceptus/attached emybro full "minor child" rights which of course means all abortions are illegal in any circumstance.
Of course I don't disagree that a teen girl being raped by her perverted father which results in a pregnancy is a terribly awful and trammatic thing. But nevertheless, destroying the conceptus/attached emybro is robbing its right to live, and I do believe a vast majority of the authors of our Constitution would agree. Or if you like, in more simplistic terms, one evil is not corrected by doing another evil.
Also, attachment occurs 6 days after conception. I and many others will gladly compromise and agree with you that human life begins at attachment, if we can get that in writing (aka legislation).
Originally posted by: Paratus
Well see thats the point, if you are willing to compromise then it's not black and white, it's gray and the only issue is where to draw the line in the most fair way on subject that is inherently unfair.
BTW there are many people who would disagree with you about implantation. Some work in pharmacies and refuse to distribute the morning after pill to raped women because of it.
I also think the founding father's would have a tougher time going your way then you do. They founded this country on principles of the enlightenment which said that your body is yours not the kings/states and your soul is yours not the churches.
In this case you are proscribing a pregnant womans liberty be taken by the state. That is an inherently unconservative viewpoint IMO.
Originally posted by: Paratus
Well see thats the point, if you are willing to compromise then it's not black and white, it's gray and the only issue is where to draw the line in the most fair way on subject that is inherently unfair.
BTW there are many people who would disagree with you about implantation. Some work in pharmacies and refuse to distribute the morning after pill to raped women because of it.
I also think the founding father's would have a tougher time going your way then you do. They founded this country on principles of the enlightenment which said that your body is yours not the kings/states and your soul is yours not the churches.
In this case you are proscribing a pregnant womans liberty be taken by the state. That is an inherently unconservative viewpoint IMO.
Why should he defend the fetus? It is the one violating the woman's rights.Originally posted by: hellokeith
And lastly: "You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!!!" If that is the case, then why are you not defending the unborn child whose body is literally and physically being destroyed?
That's because it isn't a scientific fact.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Paratus
Well see thats the point, if you are willing to compromise then it's not black and white, it's gray and the only issue is where to draw the line in the most fair way on subject that is inherently unfair.
BTW there are many people who would disagree with you about implantation. Some work in pharmacies and refuse to distribute the morning after pill to raped women because of it.
I also think the founding father's would have a tougher time going your way then you do. They founded this country on principles of the enlightenment which said that your body is yours not the kings/states and your soul is yours not the churches.
In this case you are proscribing a pregnant womans liberty be taken by the state. That is an inherently unconservative viewpoint IMO.
Compromising to get 95% of what is just does not make a waiver in the pursuit of justice. You get the 95%, fight to maintain it, and pursue the remaining 5%. Compromise does not make a black & white issue gray.
There are many people who disagree with me on many things. Some think abortion at 8.5 months is ok and some think using a condom is not ok. Neither of these groups of people can deny the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The literature I have read from female Christian obgyn's states that combined oral contraceptives do not appear to have any effect on tubal pregnancies nor attachment rates. If this is what is being used for "morning after pills", then go for it, since it will not affect an already fertilized egg.
Making abortion illegal only makes abortion illegal. Enforcement and legal repercussions are a completely different matter. Laws are in place to discourage unwanted behaviors, and we don't prosecute people until after a crime. I honestly don't see how liberals jump to the ridiculous and ludicrous conclusion that women will be bound up and turned into helpless baby factories, except only to insight fictitious fear in uninformed women.
And lastly: "You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!!!" If that is the case, then why are you not defending the unborn child whose body is literally and physically being destroyed?
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Now I see why the republicans, albeit with their empty promises, keep getting voted into office.
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Why should he defend the fetus? It is the one violating the woman's rights.Originally posted by: hellokeith
And lastly: "You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!!!" If that is the case, then why are you not defending the unborn child whose body is literally and physically being destroyed?
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
That's because it isn't a scientific fact.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Gametes are alive, and have unique human DNA. Where is your crusade against masturbation and menstruation?
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You couldn't just answer my post, becase it would be a problem for you, right, so you through it in at the end.
A fetus and a woman, one is alive, one is not.
Yeah, let's FORCE women to go through preganancy, i mean, you know all about going nine months, getting stretchmarks, gaining a lot of weight, giving birth, breastfeeding and taking care of a child, right?
And oh yeah, that we HAVE a functional definition for life does not trumph your religion and you want laws based on your religion, right?
Seriously, do you really think that the likes of Iran and SA have got it right? Son, think about it.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Human life begins at conception.
Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
What a truly asinine argument. Let me ask you, how many battered women and children are you currently sheltering, in your own home, and paying for their basic needs? None?!? What, so you're in favor of wife-beating and child abuse!?!
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
What a truly asinine argument. Let me ask you, how many battered women and children are you currently sheltering, in your own home, and paying for their basic needs? None?!? What, so you're in favor of wife-beating and child abuse!?!
That was really stupid. To even suggest that he might be in favor of wife-beating and child abuse based upon what he said makes absolutely no sense at all. You are comparing apples and oranges and not because it makes sense, but because it "feels" correct to you. Step back a bit and reevaluate your position.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
When one of these precious gifts of life are born into shit situations, to shit parents, or just simply born into poverty, their solution almost invariably is fuck their loser parents. They need to get off their asses and get jobs and stop sucking off the government tit. End these programs now! But wait, what about the children? You can't punish their stupid parents without punishing them, too.
I have seldom meet someone who is pro-life AND pro social programs at all costs, regardless of whether or not some assholes abuse the system. They are the first to complain about their tax dollars being pissed down the toilet on food stamps or welfare checks for the less fortunate. It seems the child born to the welfare loser matters far, far less than it did when they were zygotes. They only seem give a shit about them when they are hidden away in the womb.
I was born and raised Roman Catholic and have always felt that if God wanted every sexual encounter to lead to procreation, He wouldn't have made the Para rubber tree when creating the heavens and earth. He created us to be able to reason and gave each and every one of us the ability to have free-choice.
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
What a truly asinine argument. Let me ask you, how many battered women and children are you currently sheltering, in your own home, and paying for their basic needs? None?!? What, so you're in favor of wife-beating and child abuse!?!
That was really stupid. To even suggest that he might be in favor of wife-beating and child abuse based upon what he said makes absolutely no sense at all. You are comparing apples and oranges and not because it makes sense, but because it "feels" correct to you. Step back a bit and reevaluate your position.
It's a fine comparison. Umbrella is suggesting that if someone is against gov't handouts, they don't care about poor children. The premise does not support the conclusion.
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.Originally posted by: hellokeithOriginally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Why should he defend the fetus? It is the one violating the woman's rights.Originally posted by: hellokeith
And lastly: "You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!!!" If that is the case, then why are you not defending the unborn child whose body is literally and physically being destroyed?
Exactly which rights is the unborn child violating? The right for the mother to commit premeditated murder on the child?
All of this is a bunch of red herrings. The point is that life does not begin at conception, because there is no point in the reproductive process where the interacting objects are not already alive. Moreover, it isn't strictly "life" that is protected as an object of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States. Rather, it is only certain alive things, namely, persons, and fetuses are not persons.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
That's because it isn't a scientific fact.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Gametes are alive, and have unique human DNA. Where is your crusade against masturbation and menstruation?
Spermatozoa and ova by themselves do not produce a human being, any more than saliva, blood, urine, teeth, hair, fingernails, and a whole host of other human biological units could. I feel pretty comfortable when I donate blood (Carter Blood Care) that my blood cells will not spontaneously form another hellokeith. I am in favor of adult stem cell research and see nothing medically unethical with the use of non-abortifacent contraceptives such as condoms and COC's. Can we end biology class now?
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Her right not to have her body unwillingly occupied, her right not to be unwillingly injected with hormones and waste, and her right not to have her bodily resources forcibly extracted from her. Those are violations to her fundamental right to bodily integrity.Originally posted by: hellokeithOriginally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Why should he defend the fetus? It is the one violating the woman's rights.Originally posted by: hellokeith
And lastly: "You don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!!!" If that is the case, then why are you not defending the unborn child whose body is literally and physically being destroyed?
Exactly which rights is the unborn child violating? The right for the mother to commit premeditated murder on the child?
All of this is a bunch of red herrings. The point is that life does not begin at conception, because there is no point in the reproductive process where the interacting objects are not already alive. Moreover, it isn't strictly "life" that is protected as an object of rights and duties in the positive law of the United States. Rather, it is only certain alive things, namely, persons, and fetuses are not persons.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
That's because it isn't a scientific fact.Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.
You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
Gametes are alive, and have unique human DNA. Where is your crusade against masturbation and menstruation?
Spermatozoa and ova by themselves do not produce a human being, any more than saliva, blood, urine, teeth, hair, fingernails, and a whole host of other human biological units could. I feel pretty comfortable when I donate blood (Carter Blood Care) that my blood cells will not spontaneously form another hellokeith. I am in favor of adult stem cell research and see nothing medically unethical with the use of non-abortifacent contraceptives such as condoms and COC's. Can we end biology class now?
Originally posted by: umbrella39
I love asking my pro-life friends how they feel about welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc just to see what kind of walking contradictions they truly are imo. All they know is that these kids mustn't be "murdered" and this practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies is barbaric. However, somehow their love of this life and that byproduct of lust loses its importance to them once born. How is this so?
When one of these precious gifts of life are born into shit situations, to shit parents, or just simply born into poverty, their solution almost invariably is fuck their loser parents. They need to get off their asses and get jobs and stop sucking off the government tit. End these programs now! But wait, what about the children? You can't punish their stupid parents without punishing them, too.
I have seldom meet someone who is pro-life AND pro social programs at all costs, regardless of whether or not some assholes abuse the system. They are the first to complain about their tax dollars being pissed down the toilet on food stamps or welfare checks for the less fortunate. It seems the child born to the welfare loser matters far, far less than it did when they were zygotes. They only seem give a shit about them when they are hidden away in the womb.
I was born and raised Roman Catholic and have always felt that if God wanted every sexual encounter to lead to procreation, He wouldn't have made the Para rubber tree when creating the heavens and earth. He created us to be able to reason and gave each and every one of us the ability to have free-choice.
No, it doesn't. It requires the consensual donation of space and resources from a woman, and the law cannot require those of her.Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mursilis said that many things have life and unique DNA but are not considered human, because in the end, those things will die as exactly what they were in life, just a cell. A fertilized egg, however, provided no external hindrances occur, matures into an adult human.
So what? No person has the right to occupy the body of another person, to forcibly extract nutrients from that person's blood, and the inject that person's body with foreign hormones and waste.This simple fact, to me, is testament to the fact that a fertilized egg is simply a human at the very earliest stage of development.
