Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[syc-sadist]

i hope this counts.
I'm all for abortion...all for pro-choice not anti-choice
doesn't mean i don't like kids or want kids.
infact im just pregnant i havnt decided weather or not to keep it yet however.
but regardless wether i do or don't keep it i will always be pro-choice. i will base my decision on vurrent circumstances and whats comign up in the near future. me and my man have just bought a house so we have somewhere secure to stay however thsi pregnauncy may sverly jeprodize my education whcih is not yet compleate and i refuse to be the stereotyped house wife nor gender controla child if i have one....as in "pink, fairies and softness for girl, blue, monsters and roughness for a boy???" F*** OFF lol i just hate that :)

[pikatore]

syc-sadist is an example of a woman who doesn't want her decision to be made by someone else. kudos to her.

[generalsexy]

abortion is morally wrong!you are not only killing off another human being but a human being that should be loved and cherished by you!now two points have been raised mainly that the fetus is part of the womens body and she therefore has a right to kill it and that it is not really a human being as it doesnt really have a conscience but in both these arguments there are blatant flaws!why if the fetus is actualy a part of the women would any person want to kill a 'part' of their body?its like chopping off your hand because it inconveinces you (to use a poor analogy)!the second point was that the fetus doesnt have a conscience but shoul'nt the mere fact that the moment conception occurs the fetus takes on a seperate identity and in actual fact has its own heartbeat!!

[Osborn F Enready]

generalsexy said: abortion is morally wrong!

Morals are subjective, and different to everyone. Morally right or wrong changes with the individual. What you call immoral, is completely moral to others. That is reality.

generalsexy said: you are not only killing off another human being but a human being that should be loved and cherished by you!

What if part of that loving and cherishing would be knowing that you couldn't provide a decent life for that child? What if it meant you knew you couldn't take care of the child, because you can't take care of yourself?

There are no cookie-cutter answers that fit everyone.

generalsexy said: now two points have been raised mainly that the fetus is part of the womens body and she therefore has a right to kill it and that it is not really a human being as it doesnt really have a conscience but in both these arguments there are blatant flaws!

You could use the quote function and then you wouldn't be forced into using your own words to massacre the points that have been made that you take faults with.

generalsexy said: why if the fetus is actualy a part of the women would any person want to kill a 'part' of their body?its like chopping off your hand because it inconveinces you (to use a poor analogy)!

You are questioning the "reasoning" of the person, not the OPTION of the person. We all own our own lives and bodies, much like we all make the choices that affect them.

I have the right to end my own life, remove my own hand, or to consume things that are bad for me, if I so choose.

generalsexy said: the second point was that the fetus doesnt have a conscience but shoul'nt the mere fact that the moment conception occurs the fetus takes on a seperate identity and in actual fact has its own heartbeat!!

Once again, I must reiterate, nations deal in laws, as do states.

The fetus is not a legal entity, and couldn't be, therefore it has NO rights except by the extension of the mother, until born, when it becomes a LEGAL citizen, a rights holding individual, and a SEPERATE individual.

[syc-sadist]

ooooo i got kudos ^^ :)

just thought it would be good to add a little perspective from someone in the depth of the situation in to this topic:) hope it helps :)

[5010]

Mind if I jump in?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What if part of that loving and cherishing would be knowing that you couldn't provide a decent life for that child? What if it meant you knew you couldn't take care of the child, because you can't take care of yourself?

Some thoughts on this:
Regardless of one's position on life/choice, it is better to prevent conception in the above scenario. In other words, I think both life and choice considers actions towards high risk of pregnancy as bad choices if one wants to avoid having children in poverty. One can be considered a 'victim of circumstances' if they fell into poverty during the pregnancy despite efforts to combat it, or if they consistently choose the lowest-risk options available but became the rare statistic.

Taking the pro-life perspective, assume the unborn's life is worthy of similar protection provided for a born's life and assume a normal healthy pregnancy. The options are to keep/raise vs give up for adoption vs kill. Now consider these same options for the parent of a born child. If euthenasia benefits the unborn under risk of poverty, then should not euthenasia also benefit the born under such risk? The logical conclusion is that anyone under risk of poverty benefits from euthenasia. This contradicts what we know about the poor who struggle very hard to survive. They would much rather live in poverty than be killed. So pro-life finds it hard to believe that euthanasia is acting for the best interests of a child (born or unborn), but rather the interests of oneself. If one were to ask whether or not prevention of pregnancy benefits the child, the response is 'what child'?

Now taking the pro-choice perspective (admitting my pro-life bias might color this point), assume the unborn is not yet someone and so abortion is still lumped under the category of 'prevention'. Therefore if one were to ask whether or not abortion benefits the child, the response is 'what child'? Since there is no child, one is acting for the interests of oneself.

The above two camps are internally consistent. Adopting the assumption of the former, one can easily point out contradictions in the latter and vice versa. But doing either is non-productive and I believe that is why this topic is on page gazillion. Instead, I think it makes more sense to look into why one would assume one over the other.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: SeanG Dr. Lundrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female- producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles staes: “I oppose abortion, I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest – that human life commences at the same time of conception – and, secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.” The official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a humans being – a being that is and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” Does It Matter? In a statement form the The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Director of Media and Policy Daniel McConchie said: "Stem cell lines are quickly becoming marketable items. Once some integral human parts can be bought and sold, we run the risk that democratic societies will decide that other weak and defenseless members of the human race in those societies can be utilized for profits as well." Jews and Blacks were once said by the courts to be less than human, I wonder if we are headed down that path again? Appendix… “How Long o’Lord?” Six-months after the Roe v. Wade decision, Dr. Peter A. J. Adam, a professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, conducted an experiment in which he cut off the heads of twelve live aborted babies, pumped blood to their brains and kept them alive by machine to observe them.(1) Responding to criticism, Dr. Adam defended his experiment by commenting, “Once society’s declared the fetus dead, and abrogated its rights, I don’t see any ethical problem…. Whose rights are we going to protect once we’ve decided the fetus won’t live?”(2) In a series of experiments conducted at Stanford University, Dr. Robert C. Goodlin cut open the chests of live aborted babies and observed their hearts directly. “The thorax [chest] was opened and the heart was observed directly,” he explained. All the babies died within eleven hours.(3) In three studies at the University of Manitoba beginning in 1973, Dr. Francisco Reyes cut open the stomachs and skulls of 149 live aborted babies. The first study involved the delivery of live, normal babies whose abdomens were cut open and their sex and adrenal glands examined. The second study involved 79 babies aborted alive and later killed by heart puncture. The third study involved 116 babies also aborted alive. Their skulls were opened and their pituitary glands removed. They also were later killed by heart puncture.(4) According to a June 1972 Reuters News Agency report, testicles were successfully transplanted from a six-month-old aborted baby into a twenty-eight-year-old Lebanese man. The donor baby was then killed.(5) In 1974 Dr. Bela A. Resch cut the hearts out of aborted babies and observed them beating outside their bodies for hours.(6) In 1980Dr. Martti Kekomaki cut open the stomachs and severed the heads of several live aborted babies.(7) He later remarked, “An aborted baby is just garbage and that’s where it ends up. Why not make use of it for society?”(8) Two days after being elected into office, Bill Clinton legalized Partial-Birth abortions. This procedure requires a birth to be induced in the second or third trimester. The child is born breech (feet first), allowing all but a few inches of the child’s skull to be birthed from the canal. The baby is then rolled over so the stomach is facing down. A blunt cutting instrument is then inserted into the base of the child’s skull and an incision is then cut. A suction instrument is then inserted into the baby’s skull for the reason of extracting the brain tissue. This procedure is done on a live baby that would be considered a human (and Constitutionally protected) if it slipped out of the mothers womb a mere three inches. The baby is heard crying and the hands clench into tiny fists in agony due to the operation. After the baby dies from this procedure, she is then turned over and other parts are then harvested, as needed. Footnotes for Appendix 1) Medical World News, June 8, 1973, p. 21. 2) The Stealing of America, by John Whitehead, p.p. 52-53. 3) Cited in The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution, by William Brennan, p.p. 58-59. 4) See: F. I. Reyes, J. S. D. Winter, C. Faiman, “Studies on Human Sexual Development, I. Fetal Gonadal and Adrenal Sex Steroids,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (July 1973): 37:1, 74-79; F. I. Reyes, R. S. Boroditsky, J. S. D. Winter, C. Faiman, “Studies on Human Sexual Development , II. Fetal and Maternal Serum Gonadotropin and Sex Steroid Concentration,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (April 1974): 38:4, 612-617; J. A. Clements, F. I. Reyes, J. S. D. Winter, C. Faiman, “Studies on Human Sexual Development, III. Fetal Pituitary and Serum, Amniotic Fluid Concentrations of LH, CG, and FSH,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (January 1976): 42:1, 9-19; J. A. Clements, F. I. Reyes, J. S. D. Winter, C. Faiman, “Studies on Human Sexual Development, IV. Fetal Pituitary and Serum, Amniotic Fluid Concentrations of Prolactin,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (February 1977): 44:3, 408-413; Garry I. Warne, Charles Faiman, F. I. Reyes, J. S. D. Winter, “Studies on Human Sexual Development, V. Concentrations of Testosterone, 17-Hydroxyprogesterone and Progesterone in Human Amniotic Fluid throughout Getsation,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (May 1977): 44:5, 934-938; Garry I. Warne, Charles Faiman, F. I. Reyes, J. S. D. Winter, “Studies on Human Sexual Development, VI. Concentrations of Unconjugated Dehydroepiandrosterone, Estradiol, and Estriol in Amniotic Fluid throughout Gestation,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (December 1978): 47:6, 1363-1367. 5) Reuters News Agency, June 12, 1972. 6) Bela A. Resch, et al., “Comparison of Spontanious Concentration Rates if In Situ and Isolated Fetal Hearts in Early Pregnancy,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 118:1 (January 1, 1974): 73-74. 7) National Examiner (August 19, 1980). 8) ibid., 20.

These type of abortions are the siren call of the religious right, as if they are common. They are not, and it's my understanding that this procedure is used only in desparate cases where the mother's life is in danger. Very rare indeed.

And bringing Clinton into this is another typical right wing tactic. Geoprge Bush signed more death warrents than any other govornor in history, and some of those people were later discovered to have been wrongly acused.

Then there is the war...


Why not bring up BUsh's "death record" if you are going to politisize this subject? Death is death isn't it?

[generalsexy]

Forgive me if I lack the finese etc of using and quoting others, I am still very new at debating on this platform (this being my third post) but I am eager to learn!

What if part of that loving and cherishing would be knowing that you couldn't provide a decent life for that child? What if it meant you knew you couldn't take care of the child, because you can't take care of yourself?

If you know this to be the case then not conceiving at all would surely be the wiser option? Mistakes in life do happen yes, but the onus is on the individual as the party responsible to make absolutely certain that if they are unable to take care of a fetus/baby that that individual conceives then that person should bare the responsibilities of the actions that led to the conception. Basically to put it bluntly that person should 'made their bed and should sleep in it'.

Besides if you argue that a fetus is not regarded as a legal enitity etc etc everyone has to admit that it has the potential to develop into a conscious individual who would be regarded as such. The mere fact that states and nations dont aknowledge this is no ground to make it right as we as individuals should question the motives of all the state does anyway.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Mozart1220 These type of abortions are the siren call of the religious right, as if they are common. They are not, and it's my understanding that this procedure is used only in desparate cases where the mother's life is in danger. Very rare indeed. And bringing Clinton into this is another typical right wing tactic. Geoprge Bush signed more death warrents than any other govornor in history, and some of those people were later discovered to have been wrongly acused. Then there is the war... Why not bring up BUsh's "death record" if you are going to politisize this subject? Death is death isn't it?

Debate it all you want but all life has a begging and an end.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You cannot USE a Constitutional Amendment to REMOVE rights, which is what you would be doing.

Hmm... pretty sure the 18th Amendment did just that.

Quote by: Osborn ... because it would require a mother to disclose her state of pregnancy to her doctor, and the doctor would HAVE to give the records to the Government, and also turn her in if she decided to try to obtain an abortion. The fetus would be the "person" to be seized, and the doctor would be forced into the middle as a WITNESS for the state.

Hmm, is that what it would do? Really?

Is that what used to happen before abortions were legal in the US? Can you prove that?

I'll tell you a much likelier scenario. If abortions were illegalized in the US, probably abortions would be performed illegally as they used to be. This would increase the danger of the procedure, killing many women who could otherwise have had a long, happy life.

I know that. I'm not trying to sugar-coat the effect overturning abortion laws would have on the US, especially our young women.

That doesn't make abortion right, and it doesn't change the fact that a baby is alive long before birth.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mozart1220 These type of abortions are the siren call of the religious right, as if they are common. They are not, and it's my understanding that this procedure is used only in desparate cases where the mother's life is in danger. Very rare indeed. And bringing Clinton into this is another typical right wing tactic. Geoprge Bush signed more death warrents than any other govornor in history, and some of those people were later discovered to have been wrongly acused. Then there is the war... Why not bring up BUsh's "death record" if you are going to politisize this subject? Death is death isn't it?

Ooh, good logic. I get it.

1) Bush is bad.
2) Bush believes abortion is wrong.
3) Therefore, abortion is right.

[The Thinker]

The fact the baby develops in the womb with stages of growth is life, as soon as its heart beats I think then we cannot deny that fact. Whats the difference if its beating at 3 months or still at 100 years old? Its life that is the same means making it exist. So abortions are murder no if ands and buts about it. What makes me mad is our President Bush who claims to be against abortions yet doesn't give a hoot how many soldeirs are killed in his started War. Keep in mind we all were fetuses way back then.

[DEEJ85]

What do Pro Life advocates think about the Morning After Pill?

This might have been talked about previously but I'd rather not read through 109 pages.

[pikatore]

Why must you punish a woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant even FURTHER by having law bind that woman to have the child?

[namguy69]

Quote by: The Thinker The fact the baby develops in the womb with stages of growth is life, as soon as its heart beats I think then we cannot deny that fact. Whats the difference if its beating at 3 months or still at 100 years old? Its life that is the same means making it exist. So abortions are murder no if ands and buts about it. What makes me mad is our President Bush who claims to be against abortions yet doesn't give a hoot how many soldeirs are killed in his started War. Keep in mind we all were fetuses way back then.

Let's get one thing out of the way here frist: Jr is a freken misfit and he will go down as the worst president we ever had. I don't know what moved you, to what seems to me that you supported him at one time. Putting belief in a neo politician, bad.

As for your stand on abortion, good for you, that's as far as I will take that subject on this forum.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore Why must you punish a woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant even FURTHER by having law bind that woman to have the child?

You could turn this logic around: why punish a fetus that becomes unintentionally created even FURTHER by having a law that lets us kill it?

[pikatore]

Quote by: fushigi You could turn this logic around: why punish a fetus that becomes unintentionally created even FURTHER by having a law that lets us kill it?

If I really, really, have to, for one tiny second, pretend that the little bean-shaped biological lump inside the woman's uterus is an actual living human BEING, then I would describe abortion as more of a mercy killing.

But I dont think that it is human until it develops a brain to think and feel with. Then it becomes human. Until that point, its a seething mixture of arteries and nerves. It has simply the potential to be a human being, and that potential is realised in late conception. Until then, it is a clump of differentiated cells, not worthy of being called a human being.

[fushigi]

Quote by: pikatore But I dont think that it is human until it develops a brain to think and feel with. Then it becomes human. Until that point, its a seething mixture of arteries and nerves. It has simply the potential to be a human being, and that potential is realised in late conception. Until then, it is a clump of differentiated cells, not worthy of being called a human being.

And how would you know whether a fetus thinks and feels? Do you recall being a fetus and lacking the ability to think and feel?

[pikatore]

Quote by: fushigi And how would you know whether a fetus thinks and feels? Do you recall being a fetus and lacking the ability to think and feel?

Well... if i did lack the ability, i wouldn't of remembered anyway...?!

[Dirty Name]

These type of abortions are the siren call of the religious right, as if they are common. They are not, and it's my understanding that this procedure is used only in desparate cases where the mother's life is in danger. Very rare indeed.

I could play you some audio where out of 10,000 cases, abortionist George Tiller claims only 800 were for "fetal anamolies" - the rest, were elective.

The fact is, the abortion industry doesn't care if you have a reason or not, they don't care what the law is. They will find you a legal loophole to abort your child regardless of the law.

Charge Tiller.com ... It's the Law! | Home has more on this.