POLL - When does life begin

[nageov3t]

I have to come out against third term abortions, though. I think they're pretty horrible.

the only thing that sucks about the law banning late-term abortions is that there are no provisions allowing for cases where the mother's life is in serious risk. I don't know why they didn't take that into account when they made up the law.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I have to come out against third term abortions, though. I think they're pretty horrible.

the only thing that sucks about the law banning late-term abortions is that there are no provisions allowing for cases where the mother's life is in serious risk. I don't know why they didn't take that into account when they made up the law.

Because the mother's life is not at risk in the third trimester. Abortion advocates repeat this, then refuse to release even anonymous general statistics because it would 'violate the patient's privacy.' In reality, if a mother's life is at risk, they do a C-section or induce labor, not an abortion.

 

[jackschmittusa]

One of the things that irritate me most about this whole issue, is that many of the people who are adamantly opposed to abortion that I've talked to are also opposed to sex education, availibility of birth control to minors, and hate Planned Parenthood. Kind of hard to argue that you need to accept the consequences of your actions if you don't tell them the consequences or offer preventitive measures.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: element
...

Don't waste your breath. He's older and fought in more wars, so what he says is right, period.

But I have a bigger wiener so I win. Plus I drive a more expensive car, have a bigger house, can pee farther, have a hotter girlfriend, no wait 2 of those, I wear bigger shoes, wide ones....and umm....oh yeah my IQ is 235 and I got a 1600 on my SATs, a Phd. in brain surgery and made socrates my bitch in a previous life. plus it's pronounced soh crates in the dictionary I wrote one night on my homemade typewriter so don't even....

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
One of the things that irritate me most about this whole issue, is that many of the people who are adamantly opposed to abortion that I've talked to are also opposed to sex education, availibility of birth control to minors, and hate Planned Parenthood. Kind of hard to argue that you need to accept the consequences of your actions if you don't tell them the consequences or offer preventitive measures.

These things perpetuate abortion. The demand for abortion would be orders of magnitude lower if people practiced abstinence. Planned Parenthood is the world's leading abortion supplier. They're also one of, if not the, largest supplier of contraceptives. This is not coincidence - one begets the other. That's why I believe it's disingenuous to teach 'safe sex' - it's not safe. I think that if you teach someone that, you should be held liable if they catch an STD or become pregnant. Teaching them that there's a possibility of failure is meaningless when you're telling them that they'll be safe X% of the time, because (teens especially) have the 'it can't/won't happen to me' attitude. "Condoms stop pregnancy? GIT R DUN!"

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: loki8481
I have to come out against third term abortions, though. I think they're pretty horrible.

the only thing that sucks about the law banning late-term abortions is that there are no provisions allowing for cases where the mother's life is in serious risk. I don't know why they didn't take that into account when they made up the law.

Because the mother's life is not at risk in the third trimester. Abortion advocates repeat this, then refuse to release even anonymous general statistics because it would 'violate the patient's privacy.' In reality, if a mother's life is at risk, they do a C-section or induce labor, not an abortion.

the reason that not including the health clause is stupid is has nothing to do with actual health risks -- not including the clause goes directly against Roe v Wade / Doe v Bolton.

from http://216.239.41.104/search?q.../+roe+v+wade&hl=en

"The State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

while I don't agree 100% with the court's definition of health --

from http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cas...eproduction/bolton.htm

"We agree with the District Court? the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

it is what it is (at least in regards to third-term abortions), and it was dumb not to include such a provision in the law.

 

[chess9]

CycloWizard:

I part ways with you at this juncture. Jack is, IMHO, correct about the problem of sex education. I support contraception, strong sex ed, abstinence when appropriate (to say nothing of possible), but not the abortion of a zygote/fetus. I also support the use of zygotes for embryonic stem cell research because the potential good outweighs the real harm, IMHO. (This is a tough call for me, but I fall on the side of the suffering millions who have a voice, versus the suffering millions who have no voice.)

This is a hugely emotional issue and I respect your views. (I have a Catholic mother <makes the sign of the cross>) Reasonable men and women can and do differ on this issue.

-Robert

 

[0roo0roo]

well consider the moral worth god seems to put into the "unborn". figures of natural spontenous abortions range from 40 to 80% of conceptions. most being so early that it is unnoticed, flushed with the flow.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
actually it is relevant. a zygote has the potential to become a human given the environment. however, given a different environment, it can turn into any organ (heart, colon, brain), or it can just keep growing as a mass of cells without differentiation.

You will also die if you don't live in the right environment. Does that make you less human?

no, because i am already fully differentiated.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
1) there is no harm in calling a zygote a "human being." however, that still does not make it a human being. it still has the same 40-80% chance of not developing for a multitude of reasons. one of them is an intrauterine device that prevents embryo implantation, but still allows fertilization.

2) i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. almost everything is a potential human being. those zygotes they threw away at the fertility clinic are potential human beings.

3) it is true that many women who favor abortions don't want to have them. but it is good to have an option when circumstances change. while all those preventative measures mentioned do help prevent pregnancy, sometimes there is still an unwanted pregnancy.

1) Over a long enough timeframe, all human beings' survival goes to zero. The fact that the infant mortality rate is lower than the mortality rate of a zygote is because we have developed medicine to counteract childhood diseases and other problems.

3) If you get pregnant, who is to blame - the mother or the baby? The mother made a conscious choice to engage in behavior that could lead to pregnancy. If you want to make an exception for rape, that is one thing, but the fact is that rape accounts for far less than 1% of abortions, thus cannot be logically used to justify all abortions.

why make an exception to rape? as klixxxer pointed out, there's still a zygote/fetus involved in rape. so what's the difference?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Genetically speaking, almost everything is a potential human being.

Your twisted sense of what makes a human a human does not a human make.

I already proved that a zygote is, indeed, a human being. You're just going to ignore that, as it isn't expedient for your argument? That's an intelligent way to conduct a discussion.

you have only proved that your definition of "human being" includes an undifferentiated zygote. that is a problem because we cannot agree on the definition of "human being."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it is what it is (at least in regards to third-term abortions), and it was dumb not to include such a provision in the law.

The problem is the definition of 'health.' Any woman would always be able to find at least one doctor that will say her 'health' would be endangered by having the baby. Her 'health' is in a lot greater danger from having an abortion, as many psychological and physical problems commonly develop in post-abortion women, but apparently that's not an issue.

Originally posted by: chess9
CycloWizard:

I part ways with you at this juncture. Jack is, IMHO, correct about the problem of sex education. I support contraception, strong sex ed, abstinence when appropriate (to say nothing of possible), but not the abortion of a zygote/fetus. I also support the use of zygotes for embryonic stem cell research because the potential good outweighs the real harm, IMHO. (This is a tough call for me, but I fall on the side of the suffering millions who have a voice, versus the suffering millions who have no voice.)

This is a hugely emotional issue and I respect your views. (I have a Catholic mother <makes the sign of the cross>) Reasonable men and women can and do differ on this issue.

:thumbsup: Good to see someone can be reasonable in discussing the subject, even if your views don't match my own. IMO, safe sex education has been pushed for the last several decades. It's resulted in an increase in the spread of STDs and an increase in undesired pregnancy. This makes it obvious to me that it's not working, and thus I believe it disingenuous to continue to preach this exclusively. As I said, it would work if the people targeted weren't of mentality 'it can't happen to me.' Of course, even 'safe sex' actually 'working' doesn't work all the time, and I believe this is the real problem.

Originally posted by: jhu
no, because i am already fully differentiated.

So, your argument isn't as you said it was before - that the fetus isn't a person because it requires a specific environment and sustenance to grow.

why make an exception to rape? as klixxxer pointed out, there's still a zygote/fetus involved in rape. so what's the difference?

I can wage a different argument against allowing abortions in cases of rape. However, the number that occur in cases of rape are infinitesimally small relative to the total number. Thus, for the purposes of this forum, the simple argument that I've used against abortions occurring from consensual sex (which comprise >99.5% of all abortions, or about 1,320,000 a year in the US alone), will suffice. I'm working on a much longer, detailed discussion dealing with the real issues surrounding abortion, but it's not complete yet, so it's not worth my going into. It requires a good deal of reading to understand the arguments used by both sides (and thus, a ridiculous amount of typing on my part ). Like I said, the argument for personal responsibility is sufficient for this argument, IMO. Don't want to get knocked up? Don't have sex.

you have only proved that your definition of "human being" includes an undifferentiated zygote. that is a problem because we cannot agree on the definition of "human being."

No - the definition I have used is the medical and biological definition. Whether or not you agree with it is of no consequence, just as I can't disagree that the earth orbits the sun and have my opinion hold any validity.

If you want a very simple argument as to why no abortions should be legal, here goes.

In being willing to kill the embryo, we accept responsibility for killing what we must admit may be a person. There is some reason to believe it is?namely the fact that it is a living, human individual and the inconclusiveness of arguments that try to exclude it from the protected circle of personhood.

To be willing to kill what for all we know could be a person is to be willing to kill it if it is a person. And since we cannot absolutely settle if it is a person except by a metaphysical postulate, for all practical purposes we must hold that to be willing to kill the embryo is to be willing to kill a person.

 

[Sultan]

in the loins?

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jhu
no, because i am already fully differentiated.

So, your argument isn't as you said it was before - that the fetus isn't a person because it requires a specific environment and sustenance to grow.

such are the properties of a zygote that i, and most people, would say prevents it from being a "human being."

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

why make an exception to rape? as klixxxer pointed out, there's still a zygote/fetus involved in rape. so what's the difference?

I can wage a different argument against allowing abortions in cases of rape. However, the number that occur in cases of rape are infinitesimally small relative to the total number. Thus, for the purposes of this forum, the simple argument that I've used against abortions occurring from consensual sex (which comprise >99.5% of all abortions, or about 1,320,000 a year in the US alone), will suffice. I'm working on a much longer, detailed discussion dealing with the real issues surrounding abortion, but it's not complete yet, so it's not worth my going into. It requires a good deal of reading to understand the arguments used by both sides (and thus, a ridiculous amount of typing on my part ). Like I said, the argument for personal responsibility is sufficient for this argument, IMO. Don't want to get knocked up? Don't have sex.

well, type away.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

you have only proved that your definition of "human being" includes an undifferentiated zygote. that is a problem because we cannot agree on the definition of "human being."

No - the definition I have used is the medical and biological definition. Whether or not you agree with it is of no consequence, just as I can't disagree that the earth orbits the sun and have my opinion hold any validity.

there is no clear cut medical/biological definition of "human being." it is more of a philosophical one.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If you want a very simple argument as to why no abortions should be legal, here goes.

In being willing to kill the embryo, we accept responsibility for killing what we must admit may be a person. There is some reason to believe it is?namely the fact that it is a living, human individual and the inconclusiveness of arguments that try to exclude it from the protected circle of personhood.

To be willing to kill what for all we know could be a person is to be willing to kill it if it is a person. And since we cannot absolutely settle if it is a person except by a metaphysical postulate, for all practical purposes we must hold that to be willing to kill the embryo is to be willing to kill a person.

this argument fails because i and many others do not accept the zygote to be a person. is it living? yes. is it a human individual? no. that's the part that cannot be agreed upon.

 

[GMElias]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: biostud666
Life begin at conception, life in legal understandement begins after 3rd month.

So sperms and eggs are not alive?

This is a personal/religious/legal question not a scientific one.

not necessarily...after talking to friend at the NIH, I don't believe when the sperm and the egg connect to each other that there is a human being. Sure, they are alive, but so are the skin cell you rip off every time you scratch yourself. I don't think a small group of un-differentiated cells=a human being. I think it is a gradual change. Regarding stem-cell research, I believe it should be continued. It is riduculous to think that 5 cells are a human being, especially when people are willing to donate to sperm bank where their specimens are frozen and often thrown away. Why not use these for some scientific purpose. Then, there are those idiots who say, "Well, where do you draw the line? After 5 cells, it will be 10 and then 100 and then a baby." Not entirely a bad question, but pretty short-sighted.

Now, another curiosity (Bush supporters-please answer this one!). How can a man say he is against taking the "life" of an unborn baby when he is willing to accept casualties in war, and not just from our side, but all the men, women, and children being killed every day as "innocent victims" (and no, innocent victims do not include those who attack others and riot because to me, they have already forfeited their lives once they start trying to take others' lives)? Now, you might say that the president has a greater cause in fighting. Therefore, the inevitable casualties are compensated by the "good" that is being done. But then I ask you, since stem-cell research (and we can probably extend that to most scientific research) does a lot of good, why isn't that enough compensation?

Hmmmm....seems like a hypocritical stance to me.
-Elias
Wrong.

 

[CycloWizard]

Unless you can accept the fact that a zygote IS a human being (as it is defined by both the biological and medical communities), then I can't argue with you. If you try to refute scientific fact, then I'm not going to try to argue with you. The fact is, this IS a human being, whether you acknowledge it or not. The argument cannot be waged that it is not a human being. The argument, however, may be waged that it is not a person. A person is an entity to which we assign rights. However, as I stated in my other argument, we can't agree whether or not it's truly a person, since any definition of a person will be inherently arbitrary and based on a metaphysical postulate. Thus, if you're willing to kill what, for all we know, is a person, then you're willing to kill it if it is a person.

I was hoping at least one person in this forum would be aware of even the most cursory facts surrounding this issue and be able to wage a real argument. It greatly saddens me that the propaganda of the abortion industry is really this far reaching. I'm not trying to denigrate anyone - just educate them.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: element
I don't care when it begins it should be legal to abort both parents if they fvck but don't want the kid and don't use contraception.

Your ass is crass.

Why? It is HUMAN NATURE, you can deny that all you want but it still is.

If it wasn't you would not exist.

Your ass is stupid.

It is human nature to be stupid? You can have sex without having kids. If you can't figure that out then just do us all a favor and end it right now. Who is stupid now?

How hard is it to understand: 'Don't have unprotected sex if you don't want a kid'? If it's human nature to bring a kid into this world you won't take care of the FVCK human and their stupid nature.

What it really is, is friggin a bunch of uneducated animal fvxks who can't control themselves or plan for the future.

Is that YOU'RE human nature? It sure as hell ain't mine.

You will have to excuse me but if you are willing to say that it is not in human nature to procreate then i have no answer i guess. you see, before you started to explain the issues, that was exactly what you said.

It is human nature to want sex, of course contraceptives will stop most pregnancies but not all, and one of the humans forgets and gets drunk, it happens you know. Yes it is stupid but it happens.

I have three kids and i love them dearly, a single father with his kids living with him, i am no big FAN of this but it does happen, i know because it has happened to a girl i was with, i left the decision to her but let her know that i would support her no matter what she chose.

These things happen, and they happen BECAUSE of human nature, now your human nature might be screwed up but mine ain't.

WHEN you reach my age, i am willing to discuss this with you.

Ok in all seriousness at no point in any of my posts can I find where I said it's not human nature to procreate. What I did post was that humans should be aware of the consequences of actig on those urges and use the proper means to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And yes i know there are cases where it was unpreventable but those are not as prevalent as the ignorant slobs who just don't give a damn.

I hope you're not taking this personal because you seem to be someone who at least gives a damn enough to discuss it so this doesn't apply to you.

Its a sticky subject (no pun intended) but I believe a woman should have the right to choose up to a point, after that it's murder but its even worse when you hear of a baby found in a dumpster, some people like I said just have no remorse or anything, just don't give a sh1t you know? Those people should be "aborted" so to speak.

We have different laws here, i believe they are if not ideal then the best kind of compromise that can be found.

Of course abortions should not be done as if no one cares, but i don't believe that the decision is an easy one for any pregnant woman, i don't believe the sterotype applies to enough women to be valid.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
People who favor abortion say it's the woman's choice. I say if that's true then she made her choice to have sex ( using protection or not, birth control or not. ) The fetus did not choose to be made. But the fact is most fetuses will be human babies and deserve a chance at life. I only favor two types of abortion: 1.) Rape 2.) life of mother is at risk.

That is so stupid, who the fvck favors abortion?

It is supposed to be an option, not something you favor, you still don't get it and probably never will.

The fetus cannot even choose to breathe.

I love your kind, you think it is ok to kill a baby (your definition) if the mother was raped.

Does the rape make the baby (your definition) less innocent somehow?

So if the mother was raped and she doesn't want the baby and it's not past the firrst trimester you think she should be ordered to keep it? I'm just trying to understand your point of view not trying to put words in your mouth but is that what you mean?

No i don't, i do not differentiate between the two situations, i am pro-choice in either case.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: element
...

Don't waste your breath. He's older and fought in more wars, so what he says is right, period.

for the troll.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unless you can accept the fact that a zygote IS a human being (as it is defined by both the biological and medical communities), then I can't argue with you. If you try to refute scientific fact, then I'm not going to try to argue with you. The fact is, this IS a human being, whether you acknowledge it or not. The argument cannot be waged that it is not a human being. The argument, however, may be waged that it is not a person. A person is an entity to which we assign rights. However, as I stated in my other argument, we can't agree whether or not it's truly a person, since any definition of a person will be inherently arbitrary and based on a metaphysical postulate. Thus, if you're willing to kill what, for all we know, is a person, then you're willing to kill it if it is a person.

I was hoping at least one person in this forum would be aware of even the most cursory facts surrounding this issue and be able to wage a real argument. It greatly saddens me that the propaganda of the abortion industry is really this far reaching. I'm not trying to denigrate anyone - just educate them.

The problem trollboy, is that you are not willing to listen to anyones arguments, you keep chanting the same stuff over and over and over without reading anybody elses opinions on the matter or accept that not everyone holds the same opinion you do, a good example is the bolded part above.

It is the same with you no matter what the argument is and it is getting tiresome.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unless you can accept the fact that a zygote IS a human being (as it is defined by both the biological and medical communities), then I can't argue with you. If you try to refute scientific fact, then I'm not going to try to argue with you. The fact is, this IS a human being, whether you acknowledge it or not. The argument cannot be waged that it is not a human being. The argument, however, may be waged that it is not a person. A person is an entity to which we assign rights. However, as I stated in my other argument, we can't agree whether or not it's truly a person, since any definition of a person will be inherently arbitrary and based on a metaphysical postulate. Thus, if you're willing to kill what, for all we know, is a person, then you're willing to kill it if it is a person.

I was hoping at least one person in this forum would be aware of even the most cursory facts surrounding this issue and be able to wage a real argument. It greatly saddens me that the propaganda of the abortion industry is really this far reaching. I'm not trying to denigrate anyone - just educate them.

most medical and biological communities do not accept a zygote as a human being.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: loki8481
it is what it is (at least in regards to third-term abortions), and it was dumb not to include such a provision in the law.

The problem is the definition of 'health.' Any woman would always be able to find at least one doctor that will say her 'health' would be endangered by having the baby. Her 'health' is in a lot greater danger from having an abortion, as many psychological and physical problems commonly develop in post-abortion women, but apparently that's not an issue.

I agree, and said so in my post but it's an issue for the supreme court, and thus far, everyone I've seen talk about it is either 100% pro choice, or 100% pro life.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
To be serious. I voted for 3-6 months.

My wife is at 7 months right now. OK, WE are at 7 monhts.

Right now my baby can smell and hear. That's why when he is born, he will recognize mommy. Oh boy. I'm gonna cry.

Anyways, to say after birth is simply saying I've never had a kid and never read about hte subject.

As for abortion, I'm for it as long as it's in the first trimester. Truth be told, I think that's not soon enough. I'd rather see it be illegal after the first two months.

I'd say 2 months because a woman would notice by then. Whther it's her monthly cycle not occuring or throwing up being the telling factor. But some women have wierd cycles and don't alwatys throw up. So it's a very touchy concept.

To make it flat out illegal though, that's just plain scary.

What he said :thumbsup:

 

[glugglug]

where is the poll option for "Life begins at Death"

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: glugglug
where is the poll option for "Life begins at Death"

That's morbid and obtuse, and yet an extremely common sentiment.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I agree, and said so in my post but it's an issue for the supreme court, and thus far, everyone I've seen talk about it is either 100% pro choice, or 100% pro life.

How is this a Supreme Court issue? They're NOT the legislature. They're not qualified to define how someone's health might be affected. They're not qualified to make medical judgments. They're not qualified to make ethical or moral judgments. They're qualified to interpret the Constitution.

And wtf? One of my posts has gone missing in this thread. This is about the third time. :roll:

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: loki8481
I agree, and said so in my post but it's an issue for the supreme court, and thus far, everyone I've seen talk about it is either 100% pro choice, or 100% pro life.

How is this a Supreme Court issue? They're NOT the legislature. They're not qualified to define how someone's health might be affected. They're not qualified to make medical judgments. They're not qualified to make ethical or moral judgments. They're qualified to interpret the Constitution.

And wtf? One of my posts has gone missing in this thread. This is about the third time. :roll:

Maybe it's because someone is kind enough to remove them to save you from further embarrasment?

Was the post quoted? Are you sure you were awake whild typing it so it wasn't in your dreams? The possibilities are endless.

Who is, in your opinion, qualified to make ethical and moral judgments affecting the Americans life in such a way?