When does life begin?

[SheHateMe]

Of course I don't know for certain it miss factual, it just my opinion that it is easily faked.

Oh sure...and thats why you're totally trying to apply your opinion to this "law" you keep talking about that allows women to abort up until the day before labor to answer the question you posed in your OP.

Not to mention how you're using it to support your claim that "Abortions on demand" exist of course...through special permission, but you can totally fake a mental illness to get that permission.

It happens a lot...but I don't have proof of it. So, i'll just pretend like its an actual thing.

 

[highland145]

I agree... nehalem should be locked up right away.

You 2 can be cell mates.

Oh, wait. This is P&N. You already are.





I'm across the hall.

 

[nehalem256]

The ones responsible for approving various corporate/bank bailouts, for example.

(1) You mean the ones that were paid back? :hmm:

(2) You mean the men I said should be caned?

Its a shame America does not having canings like Singapore. Then we could just have all of the banking executives summarily caned.

Given the salaries/bonuses they were paid their is no excuse for needing a bailout. If you want to be compensated like a god, then you should be held to a godlike standard.

:hmm:

(3) You mean the ones who after they were irresponsible the Democrats at least pretended to pass a bill to regulate them? I wonder when they will pass legislation to regulate irresponsible women? :hmm:

(4) And there is zero evidence of female banking executives being treated any different than male ones.

 

[nehalem256]

But lets get back to the topic. If life is defining to begin at viability and artificial wombs were developed would abortion be banned?

 

[zsdersw]

(1) You mean the ones that were paid back? :hmm:

The 1%? No.

(2) You mean the men I said should be caned?

:hmm:

(3) You mean the ones who after they were irresponsible the Democrats at least pretended to pass a bill to regulate them? I wonder when they will pass legislation to regulate irresponsible women? :hmm:

(4) And there is zero evidence of female banking executives being treated any different than male ones.

All sorts of irresponsibility by men that is not punished... and out of all your posts about irresponsible women you can find only one that you've made about irresponsible men. That speaks volumes on its own.

 

[zsdersw]

But lets get back to the topic. If life is defining to begin at viability and artificial wombs were developed would abortion be banned?

The topic of the thread is when does life begin, not hypothetical artificial wombs.

 

[ivwshane]

Actually an interesting question is raised. Assume artificial wombs are developed that can sustain a zygote from the moment of conception. Further assume that it is possible to suck the zygote out of the woman and place it in an artificial womb using a procedure no more invasive than a traditional abortion.

At this point viability would be from conception and abortions would no longer be necessary. Further banning abortions would no longer be controlling a woman's body.

So the question then becomes would the woman be required to care for the child after its born?

Or would viability be "redefined" so that women could continue to escape the consequences of sex, which is the real reason for abortion being legal.

Is a man that donates his sperm responsible for a child that is created from it? No. So why would a women be responsible for something taken from her that she didn't want?

Any more hypotheticals you want to throw out there to try and prove a point?

 

[highland145]

Is a man that donates his sperm responsible for a child that is created from it? No. So why would a women be responsible for something taken from her that she didn't want?

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sperm-donor-sued-child-support-article-1.1232394

 

[ivwshane]

But lets get back to the topic. If life is defining to begin at viability and artificial wombs were developed would abortion be banned?

Well I certainly don't think you want your taxes raised to pay for all those unwanted babies so unless you have a way to take care of them I don't see why abortions would be banned.

 

[nehalem256]

Is a man that donates his sperm responsible for a child that is created from it? No. So why would a women be responsible for something taken from her that she didn't want?

Absolutely the man is forced to be responsible for children he is involved in creating even if he didn't want it.

If a man and a woman have a one night stand and the woman gets pregnant if the woman decides not to abort the man is required to "man up" and be responsible for a child he does not want. The woman is currently able to opt out because its "her body".

However, given a hypothetical artificial womb the child would be consider viable from conception and therefore a life, so the woman would not be allowed to murder it through abortion. And given that the child would be incubate outside her body there is no argument to be made for allowing her to kill it.

So would the woman and man be forced to care for the child? :sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

Well I certainly don't think you want your taxes raised to pay for all those unwanted babies so unless you have a way to take care of them I don't see why abortions would be banned.

Why would taxes be raised?

The men and women who created the babies would be forced to take responsibility. It is called manning up, although no longer restricted to just men.

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sperm-donor-sued-child-support-article-1.1232394

Wow that sucks.

A couple of things though, has the case been decided yet? And this is a state that hasn't updated its laws like other states have that protect the donor from being held liable. And lastly this isn't the norm.

 

[highland145]

Wow that sucks.

A couple if things though, has the case been decided yet? And this is a state that hasn't updated its laws like other states have that protect the donor from being held liable. And lastly this isn't the norm.

Sucks, yes. The others, no idea but states might be looking for revenue guys should beware/aware.

 

[ivwshane]

Why would taxes be raised?

The men and women who created the babies would be forced to take responsibility. It is called manning up, although no longer restricted to just men.

So you propose that people no longer have rights to their body, a right to privacy that was upheld by the Supreme Court?

Why do you want to take away peoples freedoms? Why do you hate America?


I find it interesting that you think forcing people to do something is taking responsibility but when they take responsible action you have a problem with it.

The problem with your argument is that you don't get to define what "responsible" is. To some that means having an abortion to others that means "manning up". When you become the dictator of the United States then you can impose your beliefs until then we have the law to guide us.

But you hate freedom and you hate Americans and you hate American law so I wouldn't expect you to get the point.






***Straw man added for satirical purposes only.

 

[ivwshane]

Absolutely the man is forced to be responsible for children he is involved in creating even if he didn't want it.

If a man and a woman have a one night stand and the woman gets pregnant if the woman decides not to abort the man is required to "man up" and be responsible for a child he does not want. The woman is currently able to opt out because its "her body".

However, given a hypothetical artificial womb the child would be consider viable from conception and therefore a life, so the woman would not be allowed to murder it through abortion. And given that the child would be incubate outside her body there is no argument to be made for allowing her to kill it.

So would the woman and man be forced to care for the child? :sneaky:

Lying to make a point doesn't help your case...well it does but it just makes you a liar.

 

[nehalem256]

So you propose that people no longer have rights to their body, a right to privacy that was upheld by the Supreme Court?

Why do you want to take away peoples freedoms? Why do you hate America?

They would absolutely have the right to their own body. No woman would be required to carry a fetus in her body if she didnt want to. The fetus would be incubated by in a 3rd party (the artificial womb). After the fetus was born both parents would be expected to be responsible for it.

In short men and women would be treated exactly the same as how men are treated today.

I find it interesting that you think forcing people to do something is taking responsibility but when they take responsible action you have a problem with it.

This is exactly how men are treated today.

Funny how when the possibility of women being treated exactly like men its a crisis of freedom huh.

The problem with your argument is that you don't get to define what "responsible" is. To some that means having an abortion to others that means "manning up". When you become the dictator of the United States then you can impose your beliefs until then we have the law to guide us.

You don't get. Abortion would no longer be needed for women to have freedom over there own body. The fetus would be extracted from the body and supported in an artificial womb.

This is exactly in accordance with current law that makes it so women are not allowed to kill the fetus after it is viable outside of her.

What you want is to give women (and presumably only women) the choice to murder her fetus that is perfectly capable of surviving without her.

 

[nehalem256]

Lying to make a point doesn't help your case...well it does but it just makes you a liar.

Are you suggesting that men are not forced to pay child support for children they father?

 

[ivwshane]

Are you suggesting that men are not forced to pay child support for children they father?

When they donate sperm, typically, no they aren't required to pay for support.


Your whole argument has just been invalidated.

 

[nehalem256]

When they donate sperm, typically, no they aren't required to pay for support.


Your whole argument has just been invalidated.

When a man has sex with a woman and a child results he typically is required to pay child support. Even if he has no interest in having a child.

That is the case we are talking about.

Women are currently allowed not have to take care of children they don't want because its a fetus is not a life and it is there body and so can abort it.

However, if artificial wombs were available. A fetus would be viable outside of the mother from conception and would therefore be a life from conception(even under current law) and it would therefore be murder to kill it. And as the fetus would be incubated in an artificial womb it would no longer be necessary to use the woman's body.

The woman would in effect be just like a man. She would be responsible for a child she created by having sex, but that was incubated outside of her.

 

[ivwshane]

Keep trying. Let me know when you are done spinning the hypothetical to create the outcome you want.

 

[SheHateMe]

Why do you hate women, Nehalem?

Tell us about the woman that hurt you

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you hate women, Nehalem?

Tell us about the woman that hurt you

How is treating women the same is men hating them?

I outlined a theoretical situation in which women would be treated just like men are with respect to reproduction. Now, it does appear that treating women that way is "absurd". But yet society apparently has no problems treating men like that.

Do you hate the idea of being treated as a man's equal so much?

 

[Onceler]

According to Bardon the body does not have a soul untill it takes it's first breath, the Breath of Life.

 

[LunarRay]

How is treating women the same is men hating them?

I outlined a theoretical situation in which women would be treated just like men are with respect to reproduction. Now, it does appear that treating women that way is "absurd". But yet society apparently has no problems treating men like that.

Do you hate the idea of being treated as a man's equal so much?

Do you recognize that men and women have different Life Courses regarding reproduction?

 

[werepossum]

Just to keep things factual, that's not what the courts said. They said:

"The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

I happen to agree with that, however in my opinion the health of the mother outweighs that of the still unborn baby no matter how far along it is and any such action that jeopardizes the mothers health but will save the baby should only be made by the mother.

This, in a nutshell. (See, not all nutshells are bad.)

As long as the baby can survive only in the mother's body, the mother's preferences rule, even though if someone else causes that baby to be harmed they can be held accountable. Much as the state cannot force a mother to give a kidney to her child, the state cannot force a mother to bring a child to term. I also agree that the health of the mother outweighs the health of the child, given proportionality. If the mother is at serious risk of dying or suffering grave physical damage, she should be free to have them take or destroy the baby at any stage. She should however not free to kill a baby because she is depressed.