Thoughts on Abortion

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Is a blood cell a "human life"? How about a hair follicle?
The test is simple: Is it human? Is it alive? That you have such difficulty grasping this would likely explain the fact that you are a conservative -- to wit, you are an imbecile.


--------------------
Each are allowed their own opinions.

Please tone down the attack mode.

Common Courtesy
AT Admin
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
OMG really?

Wow.

Killing a fetus is unquestionably taking a life. A life that the mother, and the mother alone, has every right to end. That's why killing a pregnant woman is double murder, and that's why abortion is legal.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
The test is simple: Is it human? Is it alive? That you have such difficulty grasping this would likely explain the fact that you are a conservative -- to wit, you are an imbecile.

You in your quest to justify your beliefs are making a leap to a falsehood by playing semantics. Just because something is alive, and of human in origin does not make it a human life, that's just about the most pathetic argument I have ever heard for life not beginning at conception. Neither a sperm, or an egg are human beings, when they join and form a zygote that's the creation of what will become a human being, the argument is when that zygote is considered a human being, some say at birth, some say sometime during pregnancy, some say when they join and the first clump of cells is formed.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You in your quest to justify your beliefs are making a leap to a falsehood by playing semantics. Just because something is alive, and of human in origin does not make it a human life
It absolutely does! Life is life. Something that lives is life. Gametes live. They are life. You are merely trying to deny the obvious because you realize how utterly it demolishes your position.

...that's just about the most pathetic argument I have ever heard for life not beginning at conception.
But you can't refute it!

Neither a sperm, or an egg are human beings
So? Not all human life is a human being. HeLa cell cultures are an easy example. They get flushed down the drain all over the country every day in research labs. Human life! Flushed away! Where's your outrage?

...when they join and form a zygote that's the creation of what will become a human being.
But it isn't a human being. When it becomes a person, it can enjoy the rights that persons do. Until then, it is not, and does not. By the way, remember these questions?

Which individuals enjoy the right to occupy the body of another person ? Which individuals enjoy the right to feed and respirate 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?
...the argument is when that zygote is considered a human being
No, the argument is about when human life begins, because you said that life begins at conception. I quite clearly showed how false that claim was, and all of this rigamarole is simply you twisting and squirming trying to find a way to avoid admitting what we all know: you are wrong, and either ignorant or dishonest for maintaining the truth of your obviously false claim.

Also:
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"?
 

totalnoob

Golden Member
Jul 17, 2009
1,389
1
81
What he said was "containing 100 human embryos"; by definition these ARE fertilized. So what's clear to you is that you'd grab the freezer?

No. Certainly not. I'd grab the two week old.

Thank you for your honesty...That's what I wanted to know. I'd like you to think about what you've conceded. You admit that given the choice, you would allow 100 developing humans at an early state to die/be killed in order to save one at a much later state. You are acknowledging the core issue here that the whole debate hinges on..which is that there is a tremendous difference between the value we place on life at various stages of development. You've dropped the simple black and white "all abortion is murder" mentality and recognize that the stage at which the decision to abort is made really matters..and that you can't issue a blanket condemnation of "MURDER" at all stages. You may certainly disagree with others on what stage of pregnancy the line between person and non-person should be drawn..but it's clear from your answer to my hypothetical that you don't believe it is in the first few weeks of pregnancy..because in your opinion 100 fertilized human embryos that could/would otherwise become persons are not valuable enough to take precedence over one fully grown and independent newborn.
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Thank you for your honesty...That's what I wanted to know. I'd like you to think about what you've conceded. You admit that given the choice, you would allow 100 developing humans at an early state to die/be killed in order to save one at a much later state. You are acknowledging the core issue here that the whole debate hinges on..which is that there is a tremendous difference between the value we place on life at various stages of development. You've dropped the simple black and white "all abortion is murder" mentality and recognize that the stage at which the decision to abort is made really matters..and that you can't issue a blanket condemnation of "MURDER" at all stages. You may certainly disagree with others on what stage of pregnancy the line between person and non-person should be drawn..but it's clear from your answer to my hypothetical that you don't believe it is in the first few weeks of pregnancy..because in your opinion 100 fertilized human embryos that would otherwise become persons are not valuable enough to take precedence over one fully grown and independent newborn.

Yes, but abortion does not force us to choose one life at another's expense. In your hypothetical scenario, someone is going to die. It's a matter of choosing who will die with very little time to critically weigh your options. In that regard it is not quite analogous. It is more analogous to the situation of aborting to save the mother's life, which has almost always been acceptable to prolifers.

In choosing the 2 week old child, my first consideration was that that child can feel real pain. The embryos cannot.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Yes, but abortion does not force us to choose one life at another's expense. In your hypothetical scenario, someone is going to die. It's a matter of choosing who will die with very little time to critically weigh your options. In that regard it is not quite analogous. It is more analogous to the situation of aborting to save the mother's life, which has almost always been acceptable to prolifers.

In choosing the 2 week old child, my first consideration was that that child can feel real pain. The embryos cannot.


2 week old? Thank god we got people like you out of politics. If they all thought that way we would really be in trouble...

I'd grab the 2 week old toss it in the blender along with an apple and banana ... Ummm Good protein shake!
 

totalnoob

Golden Member
Jul 17, 2009
1,389
1
81
In choosing the 2 week old child, my first consideration was that that child can feel real pain. The embryos cannot.

The principle remains. You are attaching special significance to one stage of human life over another...a large amount of significance in fact (at least a factor of 100x). Are you saying if I devised a different scenario where the newborn girl dies instantly with no pain (perhaps if the ceiling collapses on her), would you choose differently?
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
Wow.

Killing a fetus is unquestionably taking a life. A life that the mother, and the mother alone, has every right to end. That's why killing a pregnant woman is double murder, and that's why abortion is legal.

And there's your problem. A mother does not have the right to end a life. A parasite yes. A clump of cells yes. But not a life. So which is it. In the constitution it states you can't take a life. So no matter how you want to justify it, she does not have the right to take a life. She can however have the clump of cells removed. However in that case you could only get someone on assault or maybe attempted murder depending on the severity of the injury to the clump of cells, same if someone would come up and scratch you with their nails or hit you with a club.
 

Onceler

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,262
0
71
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.

I don't think that women should be allowed to hide the fact that they have had an abortion from the judge. When I was going through my divorce my ex swore under oath that she was not pregnant but when I next saw her she was clearly pregnant and a month latter in court it was gone I asked why if I am supposed to provide my drug nfo why is she not made to reveal that she had an abortion. My attorney told me not to bring it up because it was "women's rights".
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
And there's your problem. A mother does not have the right to end a life. A parasite yes. A clump of cells yes. But not a life. So which is it. In the constitution it states you can't take a life. So no matter how you want to justify it, she does not have the right to take a life. She can however have the clump of cells removed. However in that case you could only get someone on assault or maybe attempted murder depending on the severity of the injury to the clump of cells, same if someone would come up and scratch you with their nails or hit you with a club.

Oh yeah? Where?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
The principle remains. You are attaching special significance to one stage of human life over another...a large amount of significance in fact (at least a factor of 100x). Are you saying if I devised a different scenario where the newborn girl dies instantly with no pain (perhaps if the ceiling collapses on her), would you choose differently?

I attach special significance to one stage of human life over another only when forced to choose which will die. We make the same distinction when choosing the mother's life over the child when her life is at risk. As I said, most pro lifers concede that the mother's life has precedent.

The question at issue is not that, however. The question is if a human being at any stage of development should be killed, not to save the mother's life, but merely for her convenience. If it's to save her life, as in your scenario, than the issue is decided.

In answer to your second question: I think I'd still choose the 2 week old. Although I don't quite understand the scenario. There's only a fixed number of possibilities:

1. I decide to save her. Roof collapses and kills her. I go back for the embryos if there's still time.
2. I decide to save her. Rescue her before roof collapses. Saved her life.

Either way, I did my best.
 
Last edited:

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91

Declaration of Independence, precursor to the Constitution. Also covered under all state's laws. If you so wish to claim that life is not protected though, I'm sure that you can tell any law enforcement officer that you are completely free to murder anybody you so wish.

Life is protected. Again you're trying to strawman and categorize the same clump of cells. The cells do not change identify via viewpoint. It is life or it isn't. One is free to kill it via abortion or punch and receive murder charges, or one is free to kill it via abortion while the other receives assault charges for punching/destroying it. It's the only two ways to go.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Life is protected.
No, strictly speaking it is not. You need to be more careful with your terms.

Persons are the subjects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, so it is persons that are protected. There are plenty of example of "human life" that are casually disposed of every day.
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91

No, strictly speaking it is not. You need to be more careful with your terms.

Persons are the subjects of rights and duties under the US Constitution, so it is persons that are protected. There are plenty of example of "human life" that are casually disposed of every day.

Thank you for walking into that. You just said it yourself so case closed. Persons are protected. One can take a baseball bat to all the pregnent women and should only get assault. You didn't damage what two of what was protected, a person. You just hurt that one person, which was the woman.

Thank you for finally getting it, I'm glad you managed to finally reason it out in your own head. :colbert:
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Thank you for walking into that. You just said it yourself so case closed. Persons are protected. One can take a baseball bat to all the pregnent women and should only get assault. You didn't damage what two of what was protected, a person. You just hurt that one person, which was the woman.

Thank you for finally getting it, I'm glad you managed to finally reason it out in your own head. :colbert:

No, a woman decides over her own body, i know you little punks who think that women are less worth than men don't get this but they do get to decide whether the fetus will be born or not, no retarded little punk like you have the right to make that choice, nor do anyone have a right to tell them not to abort.

It's the womans choice, not yours, not the governments, not anyone elses either. If you can't wrap your mind around that then please, use the bat to beat yourself until you do.
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
No, a woman decides over her own body, i know you little punks who think that women are less worth than men don't get this but they do get to decide whether the fetus will be born or not, no retarded little punk like you have the right to make that choice, nor do anyone have a right to tell them not to abort.

It's the womans choice, not yours, not the governments, not anyone elses either. If you can't wrap your mind around that then please, use the bat to beat yourself until you do.

The little man rears his big head again I see. Here to explain the world off again as you inevitably know it in all your baby majesty?

I treat women like queens, if anything I baby them too much, seeing as I cook, clean, pay, and serve. I will save any woman over a man, it's duty and honor bound. So why don't you run back along to your sandbox over in whatever countries you play elite ops in little punk, go play a little while while the adults have a conversation.

No one has a right to damage someone elses things or person. The argument isn't that. The argument is simply equivalency. You can't make the clump of cells a person in one respect and a clump of cells in another, it doesn't fit. The law will view the object as one or the other. And in that sense all laws will abide to that. You can't commit murder to something that has no life.

Man you guys sure do get blistered when you know you're caught.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The little man rears his big head again I see. Here to explain the world off again as you inevitably know it in all your baby majesty?

I treat women like queens, if anything I baby them too much, seeing as I cook, clean, pay, and serve. I will save any woman over a man, it's duty and honor bound. So why don't you run back along to your sandbox over in whatever countries you play elite ops in little punk, go play a little while while the adults have a conversation.

No one has a right to damage someone elses things or person. The argument isn't that. The argument is simply equivalency. You can't make the clump of cells a person in one respect and a clump of cells in another, it doesn't fit. The law will view the object as one or the other. And in that sense all laws will abide to that. You can't commit murder to something that has no life.

Man you guys sure do get blistered when you know you're caught.

Didn't both you and your brother cross state lines to sport fuck minors while in college?
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
Didn't both you and your brother cross state lines to sport fuck minors while in college?

Does your crush ever stop alkypoo? I've had sex with one girl, and she's a 100% legal girl. Checked law enforcement on both sides. As I'm sure you've read that girl is now my fiance. You always did wanna push that minor thing even though you didn't know their real ages. She's in college you silly billy.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Does your crush ever stop alkypoo? I've had sex with one girl, and she's a 100% legal girl. Checked law enforcement on both sides. As I'm sure you've read that girl is now my fiance. You always did wanna push that minor thing even though you didn't know their real ages. She's in college you silly billy.

It's not a crush man, it's pure horror. Seriously.

How old were they both when you first contacted them via online methods?
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
It's not a crush man, it's pure horror. Seriously.

How old were they both when you first contacted them via online methods?

I don't think you're at liberty for that information alky. You show enough need to stalk our threads to pose a threat to the safety of our girls. We have GSP in our family, ISP in my girl's, and WSP in my brother's. The ISP knows our entire relationship top to bottom, so rest assured we got it covered.

Can't you ever let go? It's the past, the girls are happy, and more than free to leave if they don't feel trusting of the relationship. I have the full blessing of my parnets and her parents for this engagement. If you try hard enough you can probably dig back some years on this forum and get the info you need seeing as she's one of the tops in her school.

You're hijacking the thread now alky. Please stop the rollin trollin.

PS: She found me and also requested that we maybe consider a relationship. We were both seeing others at the time from our respective schools but we definitely had more of a attraction to each other.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I don't think you're at liberty for that information alky. You show enough need to stalk our threads to pose a threat to the safety of our girls. We have GSP in our family, ISP in my girl's, and WSP in my brother's. The ISP knows our entire relationship top to bottom, so rest assured we got it covered.

Can't you ever let go? It's the past, the girls are happy, and more than free to leave if they don't feel trusting of the relationship. I have the full blessing of my parnets and her parents for this engagement. If you try hard enough you can probably dig back some years on this forum and get the info you need seeing as she's one of the tops in her school.

You're hijacking the thread now alky. Please stop the rollin trollin.

PS: She found me and also requested that we maybe consider a relationship. We were both seeing others at the time from our respective schools but we definitely had more of a attraction to each other.

GSP, ISP, WSP?

dude I posted facts, you attacked. Regardless if the chicks parents have to accept this or not, they were underage and you both went outside your states to find sex.

I'd be ok with it to let go, but both of you keep coming back acting like spokesmen on healthy relationships.