Roe Vs. Wade Roe is jumping ship

[yukichigai]

As a sort of addendum to my last post I would like to point out that with the presence of the so-called "morning after" pill it is possible to prevent pregnancy from occuring 90% of the time if taken within 12 hours of the event, 75% within a day, pretty slim after that.

Oh yes, I'm talking about a contraceptive; this stops the sperm from ever entering the egg, sort of an internal condom for the egg or something. If the sperm has already merged with the egg the pill does nothing.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

I'm not saying it's not legitimate, I'm just saying it can't even come close to resolving things even assuming all women who become pregnant would be willing to carry to term knowing someone would adopt the child. Abstinence is fine and well, but is also not any kind of absolute solution when you take human nature into account. People are going to have sex no matter what you tell them in some instances.

The best resolutions require too much of humans. We are a failed species. I don't disagree in any way that education and condoms are a great thing, but I think adoption is great for when education and condoms fail and the potential parents are too stupid for other recourses.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
As a sort of addendum to my last post I would like to point out that with the presence of the so-called "morning after" pill it is possible to prevent pregnancy from occuring 90% of the time if taken within 12 hours of the event, 75% within a day, pretty slim after that.

Oh yes, I'm talking about a contraceptive; this stops the sperm from ever entering the egg, sort of an internal condom for the egg or something. If the sperm has already merged with the egg the pill does nothing.

I thought the time frame was 72 hours.

 

[burnedout]

Roe Vs. Wade Roe is jumping ship

Will this mean that the crime rate will go back up?

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: yukichigai
As a sort of addendum to my last post I would like to point out that with the presence of the so-called "morning after" pill it is possible to prevent pregnancy from occuring 90% of the time if taken within 12 hours of the event, 75% within a day, pretty slim after that.

Oh yes, I'm talking about a contraceptive; this stops the sperm from ever entering the egg, sort of an internal condom for the egg or something. If the sperm has already merged with the egg the pill does nothing.

I thought the time frame was 72 hours.

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.

Incidentally, I've heard people saying the morning after pill is just as bad as an abortion. I can't exactly wrap my head around that one since it's a contraceptive. Anybody care to explain?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: gopunk

it's not just "potential." "potential" means something like "that kid has some potential to be a great baseball player." it doesn't necessarily mean that he will become a great baseball player. the fertilized egg will definitely grow into a human unless either something goes wrong or you take measures against it. so yes, killing the fertilized egg is no different.

ok, i can see your point. lets take this one step further... we agree that for any load of semen in a woman, if an egg is fertilized, then there must have been some sperm that fertilized it? suppose we knew which sperm that was, before the fertilization occurred. would destroying that sperm be no different than killing a human being then?

that would make you kind of like a microscopic terminator, right? if you are doing it to prevent a specific person from being born in the future, then yeah, i guess it's murder. but that argument doesn't really have any basis in reality.

if you are just killing a sperm cell, another one will replace it and inseminate the egg, so killing a sperm is still not the same as murder in this universe.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: yukichigai
As a sort of addendum to my last post I would like to point out that with the presence of the so-called "morning after" pill it is possible to prevent pregnancy from occuring 90% of the time if taken within 12 hours of the event, 75% within a day, pretty slim after that.

Oh yes, I'm talking about a contraceptive; this stops the sperm from ever entering the egg, sort of an internal condom for the egg or something. If the sperm has already merged with the egg the pill does nothing.

I thought the time frame was 72 hours.

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.

Incidentally, I've heard people saying the morning after pill is just as bad as an abortion. I can't exactly wrap my head around that one since it's a contraceptive. Anybody care to explain?

Through poor and incorrect education they mistake the morning after pill for RU-486.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: yukichigai
As a sort of addendum to my last post I would like to point out that with the presence of the so-called "morning after" pill it is possible to prevent pregnancy from occuring 90% of the time if taken within 12 hours of the event, 75% within a day, pretty slim after that.

Oh yes, I'm talking about a contraceptive; this stops the sperm from ever entering the egg, sort of an internal condom for the egg or something. If the sperm has already merged with the egg the pill does nothing.

I thought the time frame was 72 hours.

Now that you mention it, I think you're right. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.

Incidentally, I've heard people saying the morning after pill is just as bad as an abortion. I can't exactly wrap my head around that one since it's a contraceptive. Anybody care to explain?

before doctors knew what was really going on, it was theorized that an additional way in which it could work is by altering the uterine lining so that the fertilized egg can't attach (which it needs to). of course, doctors know that this is not the case now, but some people still like to hang on to old data, out of either ignorance or retardation, i suppose.

 

[gopunk]

that would make you kind of like a microscopic terminator, right? if you are doing it to prevent a specific person from being born in the future, then yeah, i guess it's murder. but that argument doesn't really have any basis in reality.

if you are just killing a sperm cell, another one will replace it and inseminate the egg, so killing a sperm is still not the same as murder in this universe.

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

i know this is all hypothetical, i'm just curious to see what your answers are.

also, why are you against murder? i'm against it because it hurts the person being murdered, and anybody that cared in any way about that person.

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: gopunk

I wasn't comparing slavery with abortion, I was comparing the ATTITUDE of the colonial slavers toward blacks with your ATTITUDE toward an unborn child. It's a very important point. You are degrading the person in the womb of the mother to a non-person. Now we know exactly where we disagree on this issue. You don't think that an unborn child is a person and I do. I honestly don't understand your logic. How does passing through a woman's vagina inately change the personhood of the human coming out? It isn't some magic portal that has Person Fairies all around it zapping blobs of flesh with their "PersonWand"TM. The child is simply passing from one stage of development to another. It makes no sense to classify it as a non-person one instant and a person the next, when ultimately there is no change in the nature of the being coming out. You are saying location determines personhood. That just sounds ludicrous to me.

as far as your "tax credit" BS, why can it be considered a double homocide to kill a pregnant mother? In that case the law is definitely in the favor of the life of the child.

I consider and all the pro-lifer's consider the fetus to be a person.

the child passes from one stage of development to another when it goes from 2 cells to however many are in a newborn... but it's rediculous to think that 2 cells is a human being.

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: gopunk

I wasn't comparing slavery with abortion, I was comparing the ATTITUDE of the colonial slavers toward blacks with your ATTITUDE toward an unborn child. It's a very important point. You are degrading the person in the womb of the mother to a non-person. Now we know exactly where we disagree on this issue. You don't think that an unborn child is a person and I do. I honestly don't understand your logic. How does passing through a woman's vagina inately change the personhood of the human coming out? It isn't some magic portal that has Person Fairies all around it zapping blobs of flesh with their "PersonWand"TM. The child is simply passing from one stage of development to another. It makes no sense to classify it as a non-person one instant and a person the next, when ultimately there is no change in the nature of the being coming out. You are saying location determines personhood. That just sounds ludicrous to me.

as far as your "tax credit" BS, why can it be considered a double homocide to kill a pregnant mother? In that case the law is definitely in the favor of the life of the child.

I consider and all the pro-lifer's consider the fetus to be a person.

the child passes from one stage of development to another when it goes from 2 cells to however many are in a newborn... but it's rediculous to think that 2 cells is a human being.

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

agreed

consider the case if I KILL an unborn fetus

you can't murder a fetus right?

i guess it is assault 5 yrs in jail and im out

 

[gopunk]

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

yes, that's a good question, one that i don't have the answer to (and one i don't think any of you do either).

 

[Viper0329]

I've got a great remedy.

DON'T HAVE SEX IF YOU DON'T WANT KIDS!

 

[Kev]

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

also, why are you against murder? i'm against it because it hurts the person being murdered, and anybody that cared in any way about that person.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
I've got a great remedy.

DON'T HAVE SEX IF YOU DON'T WANT KIDS!

Ahhh, a perfect person to ask my previous question.

What then of women who are raped?

 

[Viper0329]

Assuming that people actually follow the no sex, you wouldn't have very many unwanted kids.

Give it up for adoption.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: gopunk

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

yes, that's a good question, one that i don't have the answer to (and one i don't think any of you do either).

So the line of thinking is this: "Since we don't know for sure when personhood starts, let's allow them to be killed at any stage of their pre-birth development, regardless of whether they are persons or not" So ultimately the pro-abortion side doesn't care about whether or not they are in fact murdering an innocent child, all they care about is making thier lives more convenient. That sounds like very dangerous thinking to me. Does this line of reasoning make any sense?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: gopunk

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

yes, that's a good question, one that i don't have the answer to (and one i don't think any of you do either).

So the line of thinking is this: "Since we don't know for sure when personhood starts, let's allow them to be killed at any stage of their pre-birth development, regardless of whether they are persons or not" So ultimately the pro-abortion side doesn't care about whether or not they are in fact murdering an innocent child, all they care about is making thier lives more convenient. That sounds like very dangerous thinking to me. Does this line of reasoning make any sense?

No, it doesn't since you're making the assumption that women make the decision to have an abortion as easily as they might decide which shoes to wear that day. Abortion is a last resort, not a flippant means of contraception.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

I was given a chance to live...why should I be specially priveleged and not somebody else? People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: gopunk

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

yes, that's a good question, one that i don't have the answer to (and one i don't think any of you do either).

So the line of thinking is this: "Since we don't know for sure when personhood starts, let's allow them to be killed at any stage of their pre-birth development, regardless of whether they are persons or not" So ultimately the pro-abortion side doesn't care about whether or not they are in fact murdering an innocent child, all they care about is making thier lives more convenient. That sounds like very dangerous thinking to me. Does this line of reasoning make any sense?

No, it doesn't since you're making the assumption that women make the decision to have an abortion as easily as they might decide which shoes to wear that day. Abortion is a last resort, not a flippant means of contraception.

i don't think he meant that at all, i think he was just pointing out that the decision, while it is not an easy one to make, is usually made because the person does not want to take responsibility for their actions (thus making their life more convenient - maybe convenient is a bad word for this)

 

[ILikeStuff]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: gopunk

When does the child become a human being? WHere do you put the cutoff point? you are saying 2 cells, but, quite frankly it doesn't stay 2 cells for long at all. WHEN???


6 Weeks?

10 weeks?

11 Weeks?

16 weeks?

21 1/2 weeks?

Again I ask, WHEN?!?

yes, that's a good question, one that i don't have the answer to (and one i don't think any of you do either).

So the line of thinking is this: "Since we don't know for sure when personhood starts, let's allow them to be killed at any stage of their pre-birth development, regardless of whether they are persons or not" So ultimately the pro-abortion side doesn't care about whether or not they are in fact murdering an innocent child, all they care about is making thier lives more convenient. That sounds like very dangerous thinking to me. Does this line of reasoning make any sense?

No, it doesn't since you're making the assumption that women make the decision to have an abortion as easily as they might decide which shoes to wear that day. Abortion is a last resort, not a flippant means of contraception.

Regardless of whether or not it's a last resort or a flippant means of contraception, ultimately the people who choose an abortion not out of medical need (life endangering circumstances) are killing a child because they do not want to be inconvenienced by said child. whether the decision is hard or not, they still made that decision.

 

[gopunk]

So the line of thinking is this: "Since we don't know for sure when personhood starts, let's allow them to be killed at any stage of their pre-birth development, regardless of whether they are persons or not" So ultimately the pro-abortion side doesn't care about whether or not they are in fact murdering an innocent child, all they care about is making thier lives more convenient. That sounds like very dangerous thinking to me. Does this line of reasoning make any sense?

well first off, i do not claim to, nor have i ever, represented the opinions of the entire pro-choice side. please do not make that assumption.

as for myself, i am not for abortion 10 minutes before the baby would have naturally been born. but i'm not against destroying a fertilized egg, because in my strong opinion, the fertilized egg is not a human being. i'm undecided about the stages on which we are not sure whether or not they are human.

 

[gopunk]

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

so what you meant to say was that aborting a fertilized egg is bad, not because the fate of that egg is set, but because you have no control over the fate of that egg?

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

it's a number i've heard in the news... the july 1998 issue of newsweek says on the cover "as many as 1 in 3 pregnancies fails"... article is about miscarriages.

People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

and is this something you just hold to be a fundamental right, or is there further reasoning behind that as well?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Kev

so simple... you dont become a person until you are born. if the baby has been born, independent on weather or not they could have survived a birth at an earlier time, then they are a person and their age starts at that point. it is not arbitrary in any way shape or form. ...and if you dont believe me then try claiming your wifes pregnancy as a child tax credit!

what do base this claim on? just because you say so? what is the difference between a child 10 seconds after it's born and right before it is born? try not to avoid this question when you respond.

and don't tell me that the difference is in terminology and "what you call it," which has been what you entire argument is based on. semantics don't matter. it's a living thing. a baby, a fetus, call it a cheesepuff for all i care.

the difference is one has been born, while the other has not