ABORTION

[Horace]

Oops, I meant two and a half hours.

[MO]

LOL
Well we know you're married with children!

I have a feeling, that this is a topic where minds are not likely to be changed. Have your views changed at all, since you began participating in this topic?

When do YOU think life begins. If not at conception, then where?

[Foamy Dog]

Good point and good question Moe!

I was wondering the same.

When do you think life begins Horace?

If not at the point that growth begins then WHERE exactly??

--FD

[Horace]

1. Yes,as a matter of fact. My views have changed. I used to be fairly untroubled about the intellectual basis for the pro-abortion argument. Now I see that it is not as simple as I had thought.

2. When does life begin? Well, you are going to open a whole can of worms there. It is my understanding that there is not really a satisfactory definitive definition of life.

What is alive and what is not?

Obviously a tree is alive even though it has no thoughts or feelings (so far as I am aware). But a star is not alive even though it develops and changes over the course of its existence. What makes one alive and the other not?

The answer would appear to be that the tree has power to produce offspring.

You will immediately appreciate that this causes problems.

If that is the only criteria then creatures who are sterile are not alive. This does not seem right. What about those who are celebate?

Are nuns alive?

What about artificial life? What if I build a machine that tells me that it thinks and feels? Is it alive?

What if it can produce offspring (perhaps by building them)? Now is it alive?

What if a foetus is going to become a nun or is destined to be sterile for some other reason? Then it will never be alive.

What if it is going to stop developing before it becomes sentient and before it develops an ability to reproduce? Is it really alive then?

Why is it special merely because it has human genes?

And the big question - Should I be allowed to just kill nuns at will because they are not really alive? We could go on a nun safari.

[fag]

Guest-Peanut2 said:

(something is wrong i cant log in, pro :)perly, but i am the original peanut)Then i apologize, but it's still is a valid th 8-)ing to say that because it will be alive, it should have the rights before hand. The fetus will be alive, unesca :Ppable, just as a seed turns into a plant, it has to be nurtured to th ::)at point as well as protected. Just a s child starts off as a fetus it has to be nurtured and car :-Xed for until it becomes, by a twisted definition, human. In order to reach this state it must be protected therefore granted the rights it will have. Dead people, have no other place to go after they die. If you die, that's it, start singing to the angels, cuz no one down here can hear you. A fetus, will become life and from that point on, as so much MORE potential to become so much else.

;D ;D ;D ;D

[Fag]

;D ;D ;D

Foamy said:

Good point and good question Moe!

I was wondering the same.

When do you think life begins Horace?

If not at the point that growth begins then WHERE exactly??
Oh Yes that's right...in my ASS!!! ;D
--FD

[Michelle]

I'm new on here - so I'm just catching up with all of you - I realize this thread is a bit old now and not sure my post will be viewed .... but wanted to add my thoughts. This topic is always going to be debated and people will always be divided, but for the record .... it always amazes me that there is a ? as to whether an unborn child is alive. Once the seed is sown - as it were - the deed is done. Life begins! Don't cha think? I really don't understand how this is questioned? Is it that by raising the question and inferring doubt we give ourselves some justification for aborting the unwanted because "maybe it isn't a real person yet"? How 'bout let's separate the two issues ...abortion and when life begins. If we take abortion - right or wrong - out of the debate, now when does life begin? If we say that abortion is an individual choice and agree not to debate the right or wrong of that - can we just discuss the moment at which life begins?

[Misunderstood]

I believe that the real question here is when is a life considered a human with rights? Life does not entitle anything to basic human rights. A sperm or an egg, individually, are both living cells with the potential for being a live human. But they are not entitled to human rights. Spermacide kills sperm. Not illegal, yet they are living cells with the potential for life.

When a woman is pregnant, an embryo is group of living cells, but cannot survive without the mother's body. In essence, early life is parasitic...it must have a host to get it's nutrients from until it is capable to live on it's own. It has the potential to become an independent being, but at this stage it must rely on it's host in order to live. The question is, should a woman be forced to be that host if it is against her will.

Then comes another question. What if the embryo/fetus has a fatal disorder and is not capable of ever sustaining life without the mother? Death upon birth is imminent. Should a woman be forced to continue the pregnancy even in the event of a devastating outcome?

Life is all around us. Plants, animals, people. The real question is, what constitues life to be eligible for rights? How do we define human? If we define a human as a being with 46 chromosomes, what about people with Down's Syndrome and othe chromosomal disorders that may have 47 or 48 chromosomes?

I know it seems that I'm trailing off into the extreme, but all of these questions have a place in this argument.

[Peanut]

Misunderstood, you gloss over many important points though. Yes sperm and eggs, individually are living cells, but so is skin and muscle cells. Sperm, egg, skin, muscle, whatever, do not hold the potential for life, because on their own, they will live and die as just that, cells. Sperm and egg cells however have to be meld together, unite in order to become more then what they are. Spermicide may kill sperm, but those spem will ALWAYS be sperm, until the unite with an egg, then they are potential for life. In my eyes, that is enough to grant human rights to that single cell which will eventually grow up to be human.
The second point i would like to address is with regards to this comment you made: "When a woman is pregnant, an embryo is group of living cells, but cannot survive without the mother's body. In essence, early life is parasitic...it must have a host to get it's nutrients from until it is capable to live on it's own. It has the potential to become an independent being, but at this stage it must rely on it's host in order to live." With all due respect, once the baby is out of the womb, it cannot live on it's own. It needs further guidance, nourishment (from the mother mind you, ie breast feeding) and yet it's granted full human rights the second it's out of the mother. It can't simply be left on it's own to grow - so i think that makes your arguement null and void, hehe ;D.
I'm not saying abortion has to be outlawed in every instance forever, it is needed, but it should be thought of as a last resort, not simply ONE of many.

[Michelle]

I would agree with Peanut, that once the egg and sperm have united - a cell is created that will grow into a human being. To your question, Misunderstood, of whether a woman should have to play host .... my personal feeling is that well, yes, once that conception has happened, the decision of whether that cell-baby lives or dies is not in our hands. A woman's body will naturally abort by miscarriage a developing baby this cannot continue.

I still wish we could address the two issues separately first. When does life begin? And then, abortion right or wrong? The issue of when life begins can be debated with facts and stats and science, etc. The issue of abortion-no abortion can bring up a lot of emotion and feelings and opinions and that is always going to be harder. In the last couple of posts the two issues are still one .... this is just a really tough one.

[garrett7855]

OK, folks, Here I go again. ;D

When does a human life begin?

Everbody keeps tossing around all these different terms
as if they can make a difference by naming a thing in a particular way. Guess what? Semantics mean NOTHING!!

You can call a spade a shovel--it will still also be a spade!

You can call a baby a fetus, or a fetus a baby--it's all semantics!

Life is Life!! A zygote, a feotus, a whatever! Call it a popsidoodle if it makes you happy, but he/she/it remains
ALIVE !!

An ameoba is a single-celled organism. That organism is, by definition, alive. The largest single difference between that ameoba and that zygote is that the ameoba has already reached the end of its development, while the zygote, if allowed to follow its path will develope the rest of the way into a fully functional human being.

The zygote is in an environment designed to nurture it the the crucial time required for it to sustain itself. So this sustenance come while it's in the womb of the mother who chose (hopefully) to become impregnated.
That same woman would be in a whole world of trouble if she harmed that SAME organism post-partum.

Granted, some women just can't bear the thought of raising a product of rape, but how dare anyone blame the child produced that way!! If you can't bear to raise it, there are adoptive parents begging for the chance to take it! So, that's no excuse for murder either, now is it?

Anyone who advocates abortion for any reason where the fetus is viable (viability being defined as: able to live without mechanical assistance following gestation) is at best lacking in morality and at worst a murderer-including the abortionist!

Oh, I know, I'm a man. I couldn't possibly understand! Well, it's true, I will never carry a child inside me, BUT--I was nearly aborted--my mother cried like a baby when she told me, so I guess I have a little idea what the subject is about !!!

So, use all the semantics you care to--it means little to me. But, remember next time you get on the subject--You, also, might just be an abortion that lived!

[Jason]

Woman's right to choose. Hey that's genius. How do you refute that, or say anything against it without looking like you hate women? Pure genius. It is of course just as insane as it is genius. Everyone for abortion thinks that they're so smart and they just babble what the nut jobs pushing abortion say. Women would die without abortions? The US Census recorded 3,518,023 births for the year 2001. There are "estimates" of abortions from 1.3 million to 1.6 million. MY GOD! More than a million women would have otherwise died in 2001? And oh, Planned Parenthood had more than 700 million in revenue during 2001. How in the hell did the human race survive extinction before abortion? About 1/3 of all babies are aborted. Oh, I know, it's not a baby just a pot roast until it comes spilling out after 40 weeks and becomes human only after the cord is cut and it’s all cleaned up (provided that some heroic doctor doesn't intervene before that point). What a sick argument. Even if that argument has merit - using abortion as a form of birth control because it isn't really a baby anyway? If I have 30 acres of corn planted and some nut burns my crops up before the corn "becomes corn" would the courts say that the nut was just burning "useless plant material" and send me on my way? Who cares when it becomes a baby by anyone's terms? You killed it! That's it! It was going to be just like you and I and you put a stop to it by yanking it out of the womb. Woman's right to choose? Give me a break. Choose the pill, choose condoms, choose a lesbian, choose something - but pulling a baby - A BABY - out of the womb at any time is sick. Not because of God, nothing to do with Republicans, nothing to do with anything except that it is killing a baby. Oh, and don't make yourself look even more idiotic by saying anything about war, death penalty, poor people, republicans, aliens, pets, or trees.......all separate issues. That's like my 10 year old telling me that my sending him to bed at 9:00 is wrong because some kids don't have a bed. What? Idiots. There’s 1/3 less of us here to argue about abortion - because of abortion. Just keep listening to their ever-changing arguments as to why we need their $15,000,000,0000 industry, while at the same time bashing the opponents who have nothing to gain. You sucked when you were a fetus and you suck now. You suck! Thanks.

[JesterCerberus]

What I find strange about this entire conversation is not when life starts or if it is morally right or wrong but how many people are starving to death or dying of malnutrition. Maybe people should start caring more about the people who are already alive. I don't personally care if that person is from a different country; countries I think are ridiculous divisions that make this world much worse than they should be. People are people, sure they might be influenced by different ideologies than us but I'm sure if they were born into our families with their genes they would do just as well as we are doing. So why do you want to save the life of something that may or may not actually live to birth regardless of abortion when millions are already alive and willing to work hard to continue but are oppressed by the situation they were born into? Even in this country the poor are treated incredibly poorly. Our veterans for god sakes are not given enough opportunities to secure financial freedom especially if they were wounded. I know a man who lost his home at an apartment building for which he was the janitor because rents went up and his pay did not. He is addicted to cigarettes and alcohol because when he was 18 that's what his government gave him to ease the pain of the hellish world he was living through. That's what I think we should be fighting for and I think both pro life and pro choice people can agree to that.

[remedios]

What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence?

Notice the wording of your statement, "a similiar choice should have been made. . ." I would never say that my mother (or any other woman, mind you) should make any choice. However, I do not have a problem thinking about my mother choosing (for any reason) to abort me. After all, I wouldn't have ever experienced life and wouldn't miss a thing about it.


Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?

I do take precautions. I use birth control correctly and have not gotten pregnant. If I one day became pregnant, despite the correct use of birth control, when I did not want to have a baby, I would take responsibility for my actions and have an abortion.


Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?

Yes. In my case it would be. Once you have the experience of pregnancy and an episiotomy, then maybe I'll pay attention to your blithe tossing around of nine months of my life and the integrity of my anatomy. But only so you don't feel like you're being ignored, not because it would change my mind.


Does the father of the child have a say in this?

No. Fathers really don't have much of a say at all when it comes to whether or not they're going to have children. It's really rather unfair. I think that if only one of the people who had sex wants to keep the kid, s(he) should be able to, as long as s(he) is willing and able to support it from conception - uterus included.


And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

First of all, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence, silly. Second, the rights of the people are enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution which offers scant, if any, support for the rights of fetuses. The Supreme Court Justices aren't idiots. They know the Constitution (unlike you), as well as being intimately familiar with constitutional jurisprudence with regards to privacy rights (again, unlike you).


I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

Well isn't it nice that you live in America, where people are free to believe what they wish and act accordingly. If you lived in China in the early 1980s, every one of your children after the first would have been subject to abortion. And you wouldn't get to follow that ridiculous faith of yours that leads you, inexplicably, to think you should be able to dictate to others how to live their lives.


For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

[garrett7855]

remedios-you are one sick puppy.