• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL - When does life begin

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Who is, in your opinion, qualified to make ethical and moral judgments affecting the Americans life in such a way?
Click to expand...
Probably no one, which is why we should err on the side of caution rather than on the side of convenience.
 
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.
Click to expand...

What's the problem? There is no argument. Two cells meet, you have a Human Zygote, therefore human = person. I've been saying stop killing all those millions of children in the dishes.


 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Who is, in your opinion, qualified to make ethical and moral judgments affecting the Americans life in such a way?
Click to expand...
Probably no one, which is why we should err on the side of caution rather than on the side of convenience.
Click to expand...

But you are the one who has the right to judge, right?
 
I hate the abortion debate. It's full of impossible ethical issues. You should not kill a fetus and you should not force a women to have a child. Both sides have to avoid fundamental truths to come to a conclusion. To say that unwanted pregnancy shouldn't happen is a cop out too. I don't think there is an ethical way to know what to do. The answer seems to me to do the lesser evil.

I do find it annoying though that the biggest opponents to abortion are Christian Fundamentalist males. I see no reason why they shouldn't pool their money and do the scientific research necessary to find a biological means for them to carry unwanted babies to term. An artificial male implantable womb for the implantation of aborted fetuses sounds to me like just the ticket. They could show their commitment and the rest of us could escape our guilt. I mean I'm for morality, but making these poor dumb women have their love babies is just more than I can understand. I'm a mean son of a bitch, but I just can't get off on that. I feel too damn sorry for the f*cked up mess they are in. Maybe we could put um in prison for murder till they get a college education.
 
Here's an ethical solution for ya:

Everybody who is here is here by God's will ahd everybody who's not is also not here by God's will. So obviously he didn't put anybody he wanted to be born in them fetuses. No?
 
The issue isn't when life begins, that is only tangental, the issues are what rights do human beings have and is a woman a human being ?

If you believe that a woman is a human being that has a right to life, then it is contradictory to your own beliefs to think the state has the right to force a woman to risk her life when she does not want to do so.
 
What's the problem? There is no argument. Two cells meet, you have a Human Zygote, therefore human = person. I've been saying stop killing all those millions of children in the dishes.
Click to expand...



What?s next? Whenever you get a blow job your gonna want to save the billions of sperm? Get a real job and get back to church....

Obviously Eggs and Sperm are LIFE... AND face it LIFE is just that. LIFE. It is suppose to die. Weather it's vacuumed up or destroyed with nuclear bomb wasting millions in a few minutes what is the difference? NOTHING...

Do you really believe if we saw a sperm swimming around on mars we wouldn?t call it life??? So, all you guys masturbating out there?. Damn, your killing billions by the day!!!! EeeeeGod! BURN IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So get over it...
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
But you are the one who has the right to judge, right?
Click to expand...
Did I say I'm judging anything? All I'm saying is that I do not, nor do you, nor do the courts, nor do mothers, nor does anyone. As I've said repeatedly, we cannot settle whether or not it's a person outside the realm of some arbitrary metaphysical postulate or definition (which this thread is about - each person selecting his arbitrary viewpoint from a list), thus we must err on the side of caution. If you're willing to terminate a pregnancy without absolute proof that it's not a human/person, then you're willing to terminate it if it IS a human/person.
 
"each person selecting his arbitrary viewpoint from a list), thus we must err on the side of caution. "

what does that mean ? caution in favor of letting a woman decide what risks she's willing to take ? or is a woman's life less valuable ?

do you dispute there is a risk to pregnancy ? it's a factual question, easily answered.
 
Originally posted by: Tom
"each person selecting his arbitrary viewpoint from a list), thus we must err on the side of caution. "

what does that mean ? caution in favor of letting a woman decide what risks she's willing to take ? or is a woman's life less valuable ?

do you dispute there is a risk to pregnancy ? it's a factual question, easily answered.
Click to expand...
"Caution" that I speak of is not killing what, for all we know, is a human/person out of hand. If you want exceptions to the law for the life of the mother, I'll gladly discuss that separately.
 
"If you want exceptions to the law for the life of the mother, I'll gladly discuss that separately."

Why seperately ? You do not think the woman is alive ? Do you understand the legal and philosophical reasoning why abortion has to be legal if a woman is considered a person ?

It doesn't matter if you consider the point of conception the point where a human being begins, there is still a conflict between the right to life of the woman and the right to life of the unborn.

Your position is that the state has the right to compel a woman to risk her life and/or her well being, in deference to the unborn?

Where do you believe this right of the state to force people to give up their lives should begin and end ? Is it ok to forcibly remove the organs of one person to keep five other people alive ?

 
Originally posted by: Tom
"If you want exceptions to the law for the life of the mother, I'll gladly discuss that separately."

Why seperately ? You do not think the woman is alive ? Do you understand the legal and philosophical reasoning why abortion has to be legal if a woman is considered a person ?
Click to expand...
As I said, allowing abortion to save the life of a woman is a separate issue from the 'right to choose' which allows abortion on demand. One is the preservation of a life, the other is the possible taking of a life.

Sorry to ditch the rest of your post... Gotta run to class. I'll get more into it when I get back.
 
have three children, NO child is born until it takes it's first breath, before it is born it is a fetus. It is a live fetus but many things in this world are alive without being a baby.
Click to expand...

This imo is a weak argument. This means people have to breath in order to be considered alive. I would say when you develop brain waves then you are definately a thinking feeling being. Fetus's as you call them dream and feel pain well before birth.

I dont even try to use religion as my basis for this. I try to use my own moral and compassionate feelings for human life to base my opinions. It is just wrong to kill an innocent being whether they are 90 years old or a fetus in its 4th month of development.

They do feel pain when they are torn apart by the suction and I have seen videos of them trying to get away and fight it. Saddest thing I have ever seen 🙁 Evenmore sad is how it has become so common place to end a human life without any reason other than in the name of personal freedom. I knew girls who used it as birth control. The whole thing has become a bastardization of the orginal intent. Like so many things when you give people an inche they take a mile.

I think it is interesting the original plantiff in roe v wade has joined forces with the Pro-life movement due to how far the pro-choice crowd has taken it.

Unsurprising when you bring this up she is called a whore, slut, two timing bitch. Amazing compassion you are again shown from the left.
 
"As I said, allowing abortion to save the life of a woman is a separate issue from the 'right to choose' which allows abortion on demand. One is the preservation of a life, the other is the possible taking of a life. "

Well, it isn't a seperate issue, it is THE issue.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Klixxer
But you are the one who has the right to judge, right?
Click to expand...
Did I say I'm judging anything? All I'm saying is that I do not, nor do you, nor do the courts, nor do mothers, nor does anyone. As I've said repeatedly, we cannot settle whether or not it's a person outside the realm of some arbitrary metaphysical postulate or definition (which this thread is about - each person selecting his arbitrary viewpoint from a list), thus we must err on the side of caution. If you're willing to terminate a pregnancy without absolute proof that it's not a human/person, then you're willing to terminate it if it IS a human/person.
Click to expand...

Ok, so nobody gets to decide? How about we do that with law enforcement too? I mean, who really has the power to decide what is right from what is wrong?

Your argument is that you have no argument at all?
 
Originally posted by: Tom
"If you want exceptions to the law for the life of the mother, I'll gladly discuss that separately."

Why seperately ? You do not think the woman is alive ? Do you understand the legal and philosophical reasoning why abortion has to be legal if a woman is considered a person ?
Click to expand...
I'm well acquainted with the legal and philosophical reasoning on both sides of abortion. I've taken several courses in medical ethics, and this is always a big center of discussion.

The woman being alive does not automatically give her the right to control everything about her life. The law dictates what she may and may not do to:
1 - her own body (organs, drugs, etc...)
2 - other persons' bodies (murder, rape, assault, etc...)

The question is whether the fetus is a person that may be assigned rights.
It doesn't matter if you consider the point of conception the point where a human being begins, there is still a conflict between the right to life of the woman and the right to life of the unborn.
Click to expand...
Person A may infringe on the right to life of person B if and only if person B is infringing on the right to life of person A. This is the reason self defense is allowed, and the reason that abortions must be allowed if and only if the life of the mother is truly endangered by bearing a child. I've not seen any studies indicating that the mother's life is the reason for even 0.1% of abortions. If such a reason exists, it is so miniscule as to not even be presented by studies and is therefore negligible in analysis of the issue.
Your position is that the state has the right to compel a woman to risk her life and/or her well being, in deference to the unborn?
Click to expand...
Her well-being - yes. Her life - no. Same reasoning as above.
Where do you believe this right of the state to force people to give up their lives should begin and end ? Is it ok to forcibly remove the organs of one person to keep five other people alive ?
Click to expand...
The mother cannot remove her own kidney, nor can she have it surgically removed unless it poses a threat to her life or it may save the life of another (via organ transplantation). You do not have an absolute right to control your own body. I don't see what your statements here have to do with the issue at hand.

Linky to a study regarding reasons for abortion. You'll note that the health of the mother nor the life of the mother even appears in the study. The study wording states that the category "Woman gave other reasons" does not include a doctor's recommendation for the mother's life or health.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate the abortion debate. It's full of impossible ethical issues. You should not kill a fetus and you should not force a women to have a child. Both sides have to avoid fundamental truths to come to a conclusion. To say that unwanted pregnancy shouldn't happen is a cop out too. I don't think there is an ethical way to know what to do. The answer seems to me to do the lesser evil.

I do find it annoying though that the biggest opponents to abortion are Christian Fundamentalist males. I see no reason why they shouldn't pool their money and do the scientific research necessary to find a biological means for them to carry unwanted babies to term. An artificial male implantable womb for the implantation of aborted fetuses sounds to me like just the ticket. They could show their commitment and the rest of us could escape our guilt. I mean I'm for morality, but making these poor dumb women have their love babies is just more than I can understand. I'm a mean son of a bitch, but I just can't get off on that. I feel too damn sorry for the f*cked up mess they are in. Maybe we could put um in prison for murder till they get a college education.
Click to expand...

i like the abortion debate. everyone gets all riled up over what a human being is and why one cell should not be killed because it may just perhaps be a human being. or maybe i'm just new enough in this ruckus that i think it's amusing.
 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Life obviously begins at birth, otherwise we would incude time in the womb when stating how old someone is.
Click to expand...

Well then Christianity is obviously true, since our calendar is based on Jesus' birthday.
 
Originally posted by: jhu

i like the abortion debate. everyone gets all riled up over what a human being is and why one cell should not be killed because it may just perhaps be a human being. or maybe i'm just new enough in this ruckus that i think it's amusing.
Click to expand...

I don't think any woman is getting an abortion when her fetus is just one (or a few) cells. I think (and I could be wrong), most aborted fetuses could be identified as developing humans.
 
Originally posted by: Rob9874
I don't think any woman is getting an abortion when her fetus is just one (or a few) cells. I think (and I could be wrong), most aborted fetuses could be identified as developing humans.
Click to expand...
:beer: 😛
 
You poll was lacking.

What about the view that the foetus has varying degrees of moral weight at differing points in its development, steadily increasing as the Baby becomes more and mroe human? That there is a grey scale between "life" which has complete moral weight, and non-life, that has none? Why do you need a stark, black and white line?
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
You poll was lacking.

What about the view that the foetus has varying degrees of moral weight at differing points in its development, steadily increasing as the Baby becomes more and mroe human? That there is a grey scale between "life" which has complete moral weight, and non-life, that has none? Why do you need a stark, black and white line?
Click to expand...
Any such demarcations are inherently arbitrary. Can you assign moral weight to an arbitrary assessment? Will you push back the line in the sand as technology increases? Does the increase in technology's ability to grant viability really and substantially change the moral standing of a fetus?
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Kibbo
You poll was lacking.

What about the view that the foetus has varying degrees of moral weight at differing points in its development, steadily increasing as the Baby becomes more and mroe human? That there is a grey scale between "life" which has complete moral weight, and non-life, that has none? Why do you need a stark, black and white line?
Click to expand...
Any such demarcations are inherently arbitrary. Can you assign moral weight to an arbitrary assessment? Will you push back the line in the sand as technology increases? Does the increase in technology's ability to grant viability really and substantially change the moral standing of a fetus?
Click to expand...

development and viability follow similar tracks but are two separate issues. for me, viability means the ability to survive in the open air. technology cannot push viability much further below 20 weeks if at all. most people align themselves to the gradation that kibbo outlined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top