Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[loser]

Why don't I have a right to destroy that life?

You do...as long as you are willing to pay the price.

[loser]

[quote][.. the zygote is a part of the woman's body. it belongs to her body. does she not have the right to choose whether/not this entity stays within her and grows until birth? the crux of the issue as i see it is whether/not the woman has the rights to control her own body.
/QUOTE]

No, she doesn't...her body does not belong to her.

Even if it did, she doesn't own the life that has been deposited within her womb...no more than a bank owns the money that you have deposited there.

You see, the child growing in her womb is JOINTLY owned. The FATHER has deposited his seed in good faith, expecting a RETURN or YIELD on his INVESTMENT.

Laws protecting investments (and deposits) are needed and should be enforced.

If the mother had the individual right to abort that life, then the father should also have the right to terminate that life.

The fact that the child is within her body does NOT give the woman authority over that life. Although your stolen car is in my possession (in my garage), it still belongs to you. Though I swallow your gold coin, it's still your coin. Though my wife leaves home, the home is still community property.

No, the fact that the child is in 'escrow' only furthers the woman's responsibility for the safe delivery of that said deposit investment.

If she doesn't want to accept responsibility for the child, she should never accept deposits.

If FORCED against her will (and, therefore, NOT consensual), a different rule of law would apply.

[loser]

what about a zygote? even further, a sperm and an egg could also be termed alive, by the same notion as a clump of cells could.

Indeed they are, do not cast them lightly (frivously).

[loser]

Who says that I don't have a right even if I "believe" that life begins at conception.

Laws generally are instituted to define one's "rights" in a given society. I can sit wherever I want at the doctor's office but if I park my 500 pounds over your infant child and suffocate and/or crush your child to death, I have indeed over-stepped my "rights" (Exaggeration used for emphasis).

[namguy69]

Quote by: loser I KNOW it does (though, technically, it began a long time BEFORE conception!

Ok. I really haven't anymore to say on the subject.

[loser]

the issue imo, is one of choice, where the woman has the right to own her own body and choose between her morals and utilitarian concerns. that is the essence of freedom imo, both spiritual and legal.

In a society, freedom must be limited, for the good of all.

I have no problem with nudity and I would be perfectly happy to walk around naked all of the time (weather permitting). I would not be em-bare-assed in the least but you might. Because my exposure might be overwhelming for you, laws have been enacted to spare you this em-bare-ass-ment.

Sometimes freedom must be restrained, don't you think?

It's her body. Does she have the right to drink poison or stab herself with knives? No, she doesn't. Laws have been passed to prevent people from killing themselves. If we pass laws against killing ourselves, why do we even question laws against killing others, embryos or otherwise?

[Fonceai]

@loser

Your various analogies are inaccurate.

Deposit and investment?

What about a couple that isn't married?

What about when the guy lies about using a condom, or when there is some sort of problem and the condom doesn't work?

What about a woman who lies about using birth control so the guy will sleep with her without a condom, whether for pleasure reasons or so she can trap the guy and get pregnant?

Too many different and common spins on that scenario invalidate your analogy.

In all fairness...

In states where the woman can pursue the man for child support, even if the man wants no legal responsibility towards the child at all, ever, then the man should be required to sign off on the decision as well, and both are required to abort.

In states where the man is able to surrender all legal association with the child, effectively a complete stranger up until the 18th birthday (great entrapment issues there with letting the man take the 6 year old for the day and then calling the cops for kidnapping), the man gets no say in the abortion decision.

[Praxius]

Quote by: loser In a society, freedom must be limited, for the good of all. I have no problem with nudity and I would be perfectly happy to walk around naked all of the time (weather permitting). I would not be em-bare-assed in the least but you might. Because my exposure might be overwhelming for you, laws have been enacted to spare you this em-bare-ass-ment. Sometimes freedom must be restrained, don't you think?

Personal freedom? No.

If someone else gets embarrassed by my goodies hanging out, that's their problem, not mine.

It's her body. Does she have the right to drink poison or stab herself with knives? No, she doesn't.

Yes..... yes she does. Are you saying that if she stabs herself, she should goto jail for assault on herself?

Laws have been passed to prevent people from killing themselves. If we pass laws against killing ourselves, why do we even question laws against killing others, embryos or otherwise?

There are no laws against killing yourself..... who's gonna be charged for your own suicide? Are they gonna throw your corps on trial, find you guilty and then toss your body in jail? You can't really convict someone who is already dead, especially if the person who was murdered is yourself.

I have every right to take my body and throw it in front of a train if I want.... that's my choice, and before anybody could do anything about it, I'd be dead.

Then the other question is, where the heck do you draw the line on the limitations of one's own freedom? Save the fetus, save the mother, save the dolphins, save the leprechauns, save the pandas, save everything......

You know what..... you can't control the entire world and people will still do whatever they so dam please without caring what other's think.... it's humanity.

If I was a woman, and I was pregnant, it would be my choice alone if I wanted to keep the baby or not, not someone else's.

[loser]

Exactly... how far does one take this? Who gets to make the decision on when something is and isn't alive or how far, prior to their birth?

Praxius: You're grabbing for straws...are you a strawman?

You know full well that the organism growing within the woman (dependent though it may be) is FULLY alive. When it isn't...guess what? The fetus is (usually) aborted!

Does a turnip need to talk or 'kick' in order for you to know that it is alive? Don't make me send you back to the "dumb" thread.

We can prove the baby is alive and is experiencing life when born, prior to that.... as many like to argue, is speculation of observations outside of the womb with digital equipment that tracks electrical signals. These machines can't determine what these signals do yet in out current tech era.... nor do they detect consciousness.

Ask any mother...she can tell you things about that life growing within her womb that machines can't even begin to describe. If that baby so much as hiccups, the mother knows about it. If the baby need a coffee fix, the mother goes in search for some coffee grounds to eat. The relationship, contrary to popular thought, is not one of host and parasite but, instead, is a symbiotic one.

[loser]

I'd hate to be a woman who was raped, became pregnant, and couldn't abort. I'd have to give birth to the child and even if I gave it up for adoption, who is to say the child wouldn't come looking for his/her real parents and then come knocking on your door. You then open the door to someone who looks almost like the person who raped you.... and now they want to be a part of your life....... I think that'd be a tad fokked up.

As Don Henley said in his song, "The Heart of the Matter":

"...and it's about FORGIVENESS..."

[loser]

I wish all of the do gooders who want to save every fertilized human ova would offer their own bodies for a transplant which can be done in males also with the result delivered by C-section.

So, what, should we wish for all of the do badders to offer their bodies for fertilizer so that they would be good for at least something?

What does doing right or doing wrong have to do with TRUTH?

Wait...uhh...never mind.

[namguy69]

Quote by: loser In a society, freedom must be limited, for the good of all. I have no problem with nudity and I would be perfectly happy to walk around naked all of the time (weather permitting). I would not be em-bare-assed in the least but you might. Because my exposure might be overwhelming for you, laws have been enacted to spare you this em-bare-ass-ment. Sometimes freedom must be restrained, don't you think? It's her body. Does she have the right to drink poison or stab herself with knives? No, she doesn't. Laws have been passed to prevent people from killing themselves. If we pass laws against killing ourselves, why do we even question laws against killing others, embryos or otherwise?

They certainly have taken the word ' freedom ' to conveniently accommodate whatever one wants to do, bar nothing. I do agree with you to a high degree. We live in a ' free for all ' world and it's getting worse unfortunately. Nudity, doesn't phase me, hell I'm 56 my day in the sun is over! As for caring about it, I don't.

[namguy69]

Quote by: namguy69 They certainly have taken the word ' freedom ' to conveniently accommodate whatever one wants to do, bar nothing. I do agree with you to a high degree. We live in a ' free for all ' world and it's getting worse unfortunately. Nudity, doesn't phase me, hell I'm 56 my day in the sun is over! As for caring about it, I don't.

Indeed.

[namguy69]

Quote by: loser As Don Henley said in his song, "The Heart of the Matter": "...and it's about FORGIVENESS..."

Whatever, I tired talking about it. I will no answer anymore post concerning the subject.

[Praxius]

Quote by: loser Praxius: You're grabbing for straws...are you a strawman? You know full well that the organism growing within the woman (dependent though it may be) is FULLY alive. When it isn't...guess what? The fetus is (usually) aborted!

You go girl.

Arrogant. Who's grasping for straw here? I at least back my statements with information.... you however, are going off with the typical "I say it is, so it is, and you know it" attitude, which proves nothing.

Does a turnip need to talk or 'kick' in order for you to know that it is alive? Don't make me send you back to the "dumb" thread.

Guess what? The turnip can survive on it's own and has it's own internal system of survival. The fetus is dependant on the mother's food, energy and everything else.

...... lead the way to the "Dumb Thread"

Ask any mother...she can tell you things about that life growing within her womb that machines can't even begin to describe. If that baby so much as hiccups, the mother knows about it. If the baby need a coffee fix, the mother goes in search for some coffee grounds to eat. The relationship, contrary to popular thought, is not one of host and parasite but, instead, is a symbiotic one.

I'm sure. And and all of those things can be attributed to electronic reflexes in the fetus for forming organs, muscles and the sort. Exercising so to speak. Twitches and movement is easily dismissed as development of the muscles and internal structure.... that doesn't mean there is a consciousness or life at that point in time.

Hell, my poop makes noises and moves in my body.... that doesn't mean my poop is alive.

[Praxius]

Quote by: loser As Don Henley said in his song, "The Heart of the Matter": "...and it's about FORGIVENESS..."

Yeah, easy to say when you're not the one who was raped. We'll see where your forgiveness is then.

Tell you what.... since your so devoted in the life of an unborn fetus, hows about those who don't want the fetuses drop them off at your door and you can raise them all? I'll get a little chicken incubator for ya.

[loser]

Praxius: Of course you are right about suicide...it's a crime only prosecuted on failed attempts...i.e, attempted suicide.

The thought police are not in power just as yet. Laws are not passed to prevent crimes. They are put into place to DEFINE crime and to DISCOURAGE it.

Yes, you can still beat your mother to death with a baseball bat but don't expect sympathy and understanding from others or the law. Being amoral or anti-social won't endear you to society.

Personal freedom? No. If someone else gets embarrassed by my goodies hanging out, that's their problem, not mine.

No, it'll probably be YOUR problem more than theirs (because of LAWS!).

Try it and see...

Yes..... yes she does. Are you saying that if she stabs herself, she should goto jail for assault on herself?

Actually, no. I think most crimes stem from emotional or mental 'breakdowns'. I think most criminals need HELP and not punishment. However, with that said, I don't think they will find very efficient help in our established hospitals. It's often that only religion can offer any lasting results.

Save the fetus, save the mother, save the dolphins, save the leprechauns, save the pandas, save everything......

Don't forget to save your breath...

Look, I agree that we are over legislated. I don't think that it ought to be the law that you have to wear seat belts and I don't think they exist to save lives but rather they exist to provide revenue for over budgeted governments.

Still, it's probably better to have too many laws (less freedom) than not to have enough laws (more freedom).

I don't expect many criminals to agree.

You know what..... you can't control the entire world and people will still do whatever they so dam please without caring what other's think.... it's humanity.

As Jethro Tull said in their song, "Locomotive Breath":

"God has stole the handle and the train, it won't stop...

though it could slow down."

I don't want to stop the train called "humanity"...

though I would like to see it slow down.

If I was a woman, and I was pregnant, it would be my choice alone if I wanted to keep the baby or not, not someone else's.

Which brings me back to my other point...

The baby does not belong to the mother EXCLUSIVELY. It is a SHARED venture and the child EQUALLY belongs to the father.

It is an unspoken agreement that the MOTHER has been ENTRUSTED to the care of that child (in escrow, so to speak) until it can be delivered at a later date.

This, of course, implies a best-case scenario under perfect conditions in a perfect world, which is rarely the case.

Stipulations for every conceivable variation must be...stipulated.

[Praxius]

Quote by: loser The baby does not belong to the mother EXCLUSIVELY. It is a SHARED venture and the child EQUALLY belongs to the father. It is an unspoken agreement that the MOTHER has been ENTRUSTED to the care of that child (in escrow, so to speak) until it can be delivered at a later date. This, of course, implies a best-case scenario under perfect conditions in a perfect world, which is rarely the case. Stipulations for every conceivable variation must be...stipulated.

Well no... my bad... I usually include the father into my equations during this topic... I just got lazy. But I feel it should be between the parents on what they decide to do with their lives, not society.

[kilkee]

It is happening here and in Europe. Our population is going down.
Most new employees are incoming immigrant Muslims. They believe that they can have 3 wives. They do not believe in the abortion clinic. Therefore their many burka wearing wives have many babies. Osama Ben Laden's father had 52 children. In the next twenty years a large number of our politicians will depend on the Muslim vote in order to get elected.

At some point in the foreseable future the abortion clinics will be closed down. We only have to wait. The feminist lobby will be outnumbered by the Muslims.

[Gods_Mercenary]

True, it's funny how fighting abortion and other "liberal" things really is unnessecary, it'll kill itself out eventually. Supposedly healthy societies die out and are replaced by the conservative masses they despised.