Thoughts on Abortion

[llee]

I typed that because I believe that the human life cycle begins from a fertilized egg cell. That doesn't mean that it is morally alive however.

If the people that kill because they are irresponsible keep having abortions instead of having babies, the human race will improve by not having their genes assimilated into the species.

 

[WHAMPOM]

WOW!! Just think of the power trip a guy can get off on when he forces a woman to bear an unwanted child. What percentage of "Dads" are the deadbeat type now? Got five, six women pregnant and sitting in jail with free meals for nonsupport?

 

[alkemyst]

This thread is going all over the place now like most abortion threads. Most of the audience doesn't understand what they are debating.

Being 'alive', 'life', etc are all things a single cell is. That's not what any intelligent person is questioning on either side of the fence. Almost all sides agree that third trimester is without a doubt a human and off limits.

It's that pre-third trimester that is the big debate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A fetus isn't an invading virus

No, it's a parasite.

it's the possible result of sex

So is gonorrhea. That doesn't mean people can't seek treatment for their conditions.

it is part of the responsibility of having consensual sex.

So are traffic collisions part of the responsibility of driving on public motorways. Stil, when people experience such collisions through no negligence on their own part, they are freely permitted to seek restoration of the status quo ante. With respect to pregnancy, abortion accomplishes precisely that.

Btw, I fixed your post for made up words.

You didn't answer any of the questions posed therein. Why's that?

I think we both know the answer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So a haploid with half the DNA of a human, and can't live long outside the body is a human life?

It is alive and it is human, is it not?

lol The human life cycle beings at conception, when the sperm and the egg join.

How can life have a beginning when life already exists? Does your life begin every day when you wake up? No. Why? Because you are already alive. It is senseless to say that your life began when you are already alive and have been for a significant time. Does life begin when the single-celled zygote divides and redivides into multiple cells? No? Why not? Because it's already alive, right?

So, if you want to contend that life begins at conception, you have to demonstrate that life did not exist before conception, else you do not have a beginning. Unfortunately for you and your silly, ignorant claims, gametes are alive already, and they continue to live when then fuse. No beginning whatsoever.

It must suck when the facts so blatantly illuminate your ignorance -- I wouldn't know the feeling, but I imagine you're very experienced with it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You made a statement that you can't back up, and now you are dancing around posting the proof, your childish game.

Which statement was that? Please quote the statement you think that I made which I cannot back up.

 

[Blackjack200]

This is another example of the point I made early in this thread that everyone ignored. I believe that people who are against abortion are so not because they respect life, but because they believe that the pleasure of consensual sex must have consequences, because for a woman to enjoy sex without consequence is immoral. Otherwise, you would NOT have said "consensual" in your post.

People will say that it's about respect for human life, but if you allow for exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest, then it's very clearly not and these people are therefore full of shit.

Sorry, I did see that earlier post, and I agree 100%. It's amazing how many people here seem to view pregnancy as some kind of punishment for the pleasure of sex.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Blackjack200]

This thread is going all over the place now like most abortion threads. Most of the audience doesn't understand what they are debating.

Being 'alive', 'life', etc are all things a single cell is. That's not what any intelligent person is questioning on either side of the fence. Almost all sides agree that third trimester is without a doubt a human and off limits.

It's that pre-third trimester that is the big debate.

Yep... almost.

 

[llee]

If you read the OP's i.e. my post, you would realize that my view on abortion was that it must either be 100% allowed or 100% banned, that there would be no middle ground. See contention III.

 

[Jadow]

Life here began out there...

 

[xj0hnx]

So what you're saying is that if someone didn't choose to have sex but got pregnant as a result of non-consensual sex, then an abortion is ok under those circumstances? If so, that's a perfectly fine viewpoint to hold; just be honest about it and don't lie about it being about respect for human life.

Yes, in the case of rape it is justifiable. I am being perfectly honest, abrotion as a means of birth control is disgusting.

No, it's a parasite.

No, it's a baby, there's a difference, it's sad you can't see that.

So are traffic collisions part of the responsibility of driving on public motorways.

Traffic collisions are a known possibility, and you are required to live up to your responsibility if you cause one.

It is alive and it is human, is it not?

Alive yes, human no. It contains DNA, but not complete DNA, humans contain a complete strand.

How can life have a beginning when life already exists? Does your life begin every day when you wake up? No. Why? Because you are already alive. It is senseless to say that your life began when you are already alive and have been for a significant time. Does life begin when the single-celled zygote divides and redivides into multiple cells? No? Why not? Because it's already alive, right?

In order for a human life to begin two cells containing complimenting DNA need to come together to form a human, neither a sperm, nor an egg are A human, they are human, but in the same way any other cell is. When I go to sleep at night my cells don't split apart and then reform when I make up, that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

So, if you want to contend that life begins at conception, you have to demonstrate that life did not exist before conception, else you do not have a beginning. Unfortunately for you and your silly, ignorant claims, gametes are alive already, and they continue to live when then fuse. No beginning whatsoever.

Alive and human are not the same thing.

Your logic is like this ...

A plane has wings and flies
A duck has wings and flies
A plane is a duck

You are pretty pompous for someone so stupid.

 

[Zorkorist]

I've been reading more and more about the abortion topic for school lately, and I've got a bone to pick with some issues.

I. The condition of 'life' shouldn't affect a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy.

While I can understand that the individual cells that make up a fetus or blastocyst are in fact 'living' (biological sense), that they are not an inorganic substance, this conclusion shouldn't affect a woman's right to an abortion. This argument needs to be thrown out of debate because our society is too modern to be held back by definitional constructs of life (biological sense) and death. Saying that an abortion cannot occur because there are "x" many cells, that there is functionality "y", or an age of "z" days is not only superficial but also hypocritical of those that stress the emotional and spiritual argument against abortion.

II. When does life begin?

I believe that life (in a moral sense) begins at birth. Fetuses and zygotes have a potential for life, rather than a state of life (again, in a moral sense). For those that say that draw the line at conception, when does the potential for life begin? Intercourse? Holding hands for the first time? Lover's first glance?

III. There shouldn't be exclusivity in an abortion law.

Currently, there seems to be a consensus that pregnancies that result from incest, or rape should treated differently. People get married for a variety of reasons, be it love, money, or connections, but our government has no right to judge and restrict marriage (I'm not delving into gay rights in this thread, don't prompt it) based off our motives. Why then should laws be enacted that discriminate upon a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy based of her motives?

Let me know what you all think, thanks.

Life begins at your first memory.

-John

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, it's a baby, there's a difference, it's sad you can't see that.

Babies are born. It's sad that you have to make up facts in order to maintain your position.

Traffic collisions are a known possibility, and you are required to live up to your responsibility if you cause one.

Only if you are negligent or criminal in your actions. Sex is not negligent or criminal. Ergo, you owe no duties to anyone.

Alive yes, human no.

Well, I guess I can't speak for you, but I assure you the vast majority of us produce human gametes. What do you produce? Troll sperm? Pigmy marmoset sperm? :biggrin:

It contains DNA, but not complete DNA

It contains all the DNA it needs.

humans contain a complete strand.

What is a "complete strand"? Do people with Klinefelter's Syndrome have "more complete" DNA than others? What does that mean? How do you know that Klinefelter's people don't have "complete" DNA and the rest of us are "incomplete"?

You see, it's obvious you're just making up criteria and introducing new terms because you haven't a real factual basis to support your arguments. Your claims were false. I showed them to be. You're just too much of a pussy to admit when you're wrong, so you'll keep grasping at straws instead of confronting the real facts staring you in the face.

In order for a human life to begin two cells containing complimenting DNA need to come together to form a human, neither a sperm, nor an egg are A human, they are human, but in the same way any other cell is.

This doesn't answer the question. It merely re-states your nonsensical assertion. How can life begin when life already existed?

When I go to sleep at night my cells don't split apart and then reform when I make up, that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

I never suggested that they do, so you are obviously imagining things. It would help if you could work on focusing your attention here in the real world.

Alive and human are not the same thing.

I've never suggested that they are.

Your logic is like this ...

A plane has wings and flies
A duck has wings and flies
A plane is a duck

No, my argument is thus:

Gametes are human and alive, therefore they are human life.
A zygote is human and alive, therefore it is human life.
When gametes fuse to become a zygote, human life does not begin, because there was no point when it ceased to exist.

My invitation remains for you to explain how something that already exists can suddenly begin. Good luck tackling that one, Einstein.

You are pretty pompous for someone so stupid.

That's amusing coming from someone that has obviously failed to comprehend the argument he's ridiculing.

By the way, these questions still remain to be answered by you:

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respiration directly from another person's bloodstream without consent? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with hormones without consent ? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with bodily waste without consent?

Since when are any of the above rights enjoyed by anyone? Why then would you insist that fetuses should enjoy them? Do you know the meaning of Constitutional equal protection?

 

[Tristicus]

It's wrong.

 

[xj0hnx]

Babies are born. It's sad that you have to make up facts in order to maintain your position.

That's right they are.

Only if you are negligent or criminal in your actions. Sex is not negligent or criminal. Ergo, you owe no duties to anyone.

Dance all you want, if you have a wreck while driving there are responsibilities that need to be met.

Well, I guess I can't speak for you, but I assure you the vast majority of us produce human gametes. What do you produce? Troll sperm? Pigmy marmoset sperm?

Idiot. The vast majority of us produce human blood, and human skin, is your skin a human? Is a drop of your blood a human? No, they aren't.

It contains all the DNA it needs.

Not enough to be a human.

You see, it's obvious you're just making up criteria and introducing new terms because you haven't a real factual basis to support your arguments. Your claims were false. I showed them to be. You're just too much of a pussy to admit when you're wrong, so you'll keep grasping at straws instead of confronting the real facts staring you in the face.

You haven't showed shit except your ignorance. In order for a human to be born a sperm, and an egg have to come together to form the appropriate reaction, neither on it's own is a human.

Gametes are human and alive, therefore they are human life.
A zygote is human and alive, therefore it is human life.
When gametes fuse to become a zygote, human life does not begin, because there was no point when it ceased to exist.

Haha ...no. Gametes are alive, but they are not a human, they are part of a human. A zygote is formed when a sperm, and an egg come together, when they do that is the beginning of a human life. A sperm, or an egg alone are not human beings. You need to go back to a basic biology class.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's right they are.

Then we're not talking about babies, contrary to your earlier claim. Big surprise, you're wrong again. Doesn't that ever get tedious for you?

Dance all you want, if you have a wreck while driving there are responsibilities that need to be met.

Again, this is not true. If you are involved in a collision through no criminal or negligent act on your own part, then you owe no duties to anyone. These are very basic legal principles. Sex is neither criminal nor negligent, so a mother owes a fetus no duties.

Idiot. The vast majority of us produce human blood, and human skin, is your skin a human? Is a drop of your blood a human? No, they aren't.

It is human. It is not a person. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, and persons are born.

Not enough to be a human.

It is human. It is not a person. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, and persons are born.

You haven't showed shit except your ignorance.

...says the guy that doesn't believe he ejaculates human sperm.

In order for a human to be born a sperm, and an egg have to come together to form the appropriate reaction, neither on it's own is a human.

Both gametes are as human as a zygote is.

Haha ...no. Gametes are alive, but they are not a human, they are part of a human.

A human gamete is human. That is what I said, and it is true. No part of my argument is false.

A zygote is formed when a sperm, and an egg come together, when they do that is the beginning of a human life.

Still as false as ever, for reasons supplied in plenty.

A sperm, or an egg alone are not human beings. You need to go back to a basic biology class.

"Human being" is not a biological term. You'd know that if you had an IQ greater than your shoe size. It is your own fault that you do not know better than to use sloppy language. A gamete is as much a human life as a zygote is: both are alive, and both are human. Neither are persons, however, but you don't know enough to realize the significance of your ignorant choices of words.

By the way, I'm just gonna keep a running tally of the questions you have yet to answer at the bottom of all my replies to you. Let's see how long it gets.

What is a "complete strand"? Do people with Klinefelter's Syndrome have "more complete" DNA than others? What does that mean? How do you know that Klinefelter's people don't have "complete" DNA and the rest of us are "incomplete"?

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respiration directly from another person's bloodstream without consent? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with hormones without consent ? Which individuals enjoy the right to inject another person with bodily waste without consent?

Since when are any of the above rights enjoyed by anyone? Why then would you insist that fetuses should enjoy them? Do you know the meaning of Constitutional equal protection?

 

[Atreus21]

Sorry, I did see that earlier post, and I agree 100%. It's amazing how many people here seem to view pregnancy as some kind of punishment for the pleasure of sex.

Jesus Christ.

That's kind of like saying we view debt as punishment for using a credit card.

Not a punishment. Just a very serious result of an action within her power to avoid, in full knowledge of this possibility and the inconvenience to her it could pose.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then we're not talking about babies, contrary to your earlier claim. Big surprise, you're wrong again. Doesn't that ever get tedious for you?

So you're so pathetic you have to resort to making shit up now? Sad.

It is human. It is not a person. Persons are the objects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, and persons are born.

Yes it is human, it is not A human. It is human the same way your pancreas is, or your spleen, actually it isn't because it only contains half the DNA that makes us human.

...says the guy that doesn't believe he ejaculates human sperm.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths, it's really bad form, and makes you look more stupid. I never said anything close to that, and once again if you could quote that, I'd love to see it, but I have a feeling you are going to dance around it like you did the last time, making up more bullshit to hide your inadequacy.

Both gametes are as human as a zygote is.

Actually no, they are not. Each gamete only carries half the genetic information to create a human, so they are not "as human" as the completed zygote. They are human as in they come from a human, but to call them a human is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination, and honesty.

 

[soulcougher73]

That's the stupidest shit I have read here, well almost. I put consensual to emphasize choice, as in the choice people make when they have sex as opposed to rape. My argument against abortion is mostly from the side of personal responsibility, as in if you can't take on, or don't want the responsibility of getting/getting someone pregnant, don't have sex. Once you choose to have sex, and a new life is created than that is a known consequence, and it isn't right to kill the child because you choose to not take responsibility for your actions.

I suggest you stop driving your car. I mean i doubt you want to take on the responsibility of getting into an accident and killing someone.

 

[Atreus21]

If you read the OP's i.e. my post, you would realize that my view on abortion was that it must either be 100% allowed or 100% banned, that there would be no middle ground. See contention III.

Disagree. I think there's an argument to be made that a person has the right to abort when they made no consent to the act of sex. That stems from self defense.

Not sure whether I agree with the argument or not, just saying I think it's plausible.

 

[xj0hnx]

I suggest you stop driving your car. I mean i doubt you want to take on the responsibility of getting into an accident and killing someone.

Nope, I like driving, and accept the responsibility, just like I did when my wife got pregnant, even though it most definitely was not "convenient".

 

[Blackjack200]

Disagree. I think there's an argument to be made that a person has the right to abort when they made no consent to the act of sex. That stems from self defense.

Not sure whether I agree with the argument or not, just saying I think it's plausible.

I guess it can be made, but I don't think it can be internally consistent. If abortion is wrong because of the death of the fetus, how do the circumstances by which the fetus came to be have any impact on that?

 

[soulcougher73]

Nope, I like driving, and accept the responsibility, just like I did when my wife got pregnant, even though it most definitely was not "convenient".

But what responsibilities do you take? Car insurance? Isnt that sort of like having BC pills or a vasectomy? Even though you have car insurance you may still end up in an accident and kill someone or yourself. And if the insurance totals your car that is sort of like abortion isnt it?

Not saying these are valid reasons but they do make a good analogy of why i think your arguement is flawed.

 

[xj0hnx]

But what responsibilities do you take? Car insurance? Isnt that sort of like having BC pills or a vasectomy? Even though you have car insurance you may still end up in an accident and kill someone or yourself. And if the insurance totals your car that is sort of like abortion isnt it?

Not saying these are valid reasons but they do make a good analogy of why i think your arguement is flawed.

It's not a good analogy. I don't just get insurance and then drive however I want and then be absolved of responsibility, you still have to follow the laws of the road or face the consequences.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's not a good analogy. I don't just get insurance and then drive however I want and then be absolved of responsibility, you still have to follow the laws of the road or face the consequences.

So what you are saying is we need sexual insurance? You can F all you want and if a baby comes along we will take care of that for you? So long as you followed all the laws of trying to prevent a baby in the first place (pills, vasectomy). Im just being silly now but this thread is so long gone its fun now.