Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave Parasites are intruders and are not normal. Babies are not parasites. That is another attempt to dehumanize as is the personhood nonsense. Black people were not considered persons under the law at one point in our history. Was that a correct way to look at black people? Of course not so the law is not necessarily a totally accurate moral guage. It is not on the personhood of the unborn either. They are human beings with their own unique DNA so the nonsense about haircuts is just stupid.

All right, so if the baby is a unique being with unique DNA, then the mother has the right to remove it from her, like any other parasite. Where did you get this idea that parasites have to be "not normal?" An intruder is someone who comes into your territory against your will and without your knowledge or consent; that definition matches babies precisely. And while you're right that black persons were not considered persons at one point in the past, which does indeed show that the law is fallible, I am not arguing from the law. It is utterly reasonable to withhold the protection of a fetus's rights until the fetus can be considered an individual. There is no logical way to protect a fetus's rights before that moment, and there are many times when doing so would interfere with the protection of the mother's rights. So since the two can be at odds, and only one of the two is capable of having rights we can protect, the law should then reflect that reality -- not define it, reflect it.

Tell me how we can protect the personhood rights of a fetus without infringing on the personhood rights of the mother. Tell me how we protect the fetus's right to liberty, for instance.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Klio The original questions was "does life begin at conception." You guys are taking it way beyond that, and if you think that a mass of unformed cells constitutes a "life" and "rights," then you will have to make menstruation a crime.

Well, then what does? According to you, logically speaking a woman is never pregnet. It has to start sometime, when is that time?

[texasdave]

We give the unborn only ONE right. The right to life. To be left alone to develop naturally and be born, if possible. That's all. That right does not infringe on the mother's rights unless her physical life is in imminent jeapordy from the pregnancy ( like an ectopic pregnancy) then her right to life takes precedence and abortion is O.K.

[namguy69]

Quote by: texasdave We give the unborn only ONE right. The right to life. To be left alone to develop naturally and be born, if possible. That's all. That right does not infringe on the mother's rights unless her physical life is in imminent jeapordy from the pregnancy ( like an ectopic pregnancy) then her right to life takes precedence and abortion is O.K.

Man your way off of what my question was. I'll ask again when is considered life begins? That what I was asking. Don't dance around it, ANSWER IT!

[texasdave]

Namguy,
I was not even attempting to answer your question in the above post. I was addressing Coffeesaint. In answer to your question; life begins the moment the kids move out of the house.LOL Seriously, it begins at conception.

[namguy69]

Quote by: texasdave Namguy, I was not even attempting to answer your question in the above post. I was addressing Coffeesaint. In answer to your question; life begins the moment the kids move out of the house.LOL Seriously, it begins at conception.

Sorry 'bout that!

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave We give the unborn only ONE right. The right to life. To be left alone to develop naturally and be born, if possible.

And where is this right stated?

That right does not infringe on the mother's rights unless her physical life is in imminent jeapordy from the pregnancy ( like an ectopic pregnancy) then her right to life takes precedence and abortion is O.K.

Actually, even if the mother's life is not at risk, it still infringes on the mother's rights by living off of her like a parasite, consuming the nutrients, etc., of HER body.

[texasdave]

Oh yeah, that nasty ole baby sucking the nutrients out of that poor woman. What a load of you-know-what. Talk about pathetic arguments. And that one right is " an inalienable right granted by our creator. The right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Ever heard that in school?

[Hmm]

Quote by: texasdave Oh yeah, that nasty ole baby sucking the nutrients out of that poor woman. What a load of you-know-what. Talk about pathetic arguments.

First of all, it's not a baby. Secondly, you admit that the fetus IS stealing the mother's property?

And that one right is " an inalienable right granted by our creator. The right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Ever heard that in school?

Apparently you do not understand. This right is granted to humans, not potential humans.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave Namguy, I was not even attempting to answer your question in the above post. I was addressing Coffeesaint. In answer to your question; life begins the moment the kids move out of the house.LOL Seriously, it begins at conception.

the title of the thread itself is misleading. The word 'life' is way too general to use in something like this.

It should be 'When should we consider an embryo/fetus a child with human rights'.

[texasdave]

It is life because from the moment of conception it is alive. Because it is alive and has its own DNA it is a "being". Because it is human it is a human being. Pretty simple.

[pikatore]

Quote by: texasdave It is life because from the moment of conception it is alive. Because it is alive and has its own DNA it is a "being". Because it is human it is a human being. Pretty simple.

You said it yourself. It is simple. That is the problem.

Therefore, the woman should be held responsible for a miscarriage. She shuold be held responsible for taking the morning after pill. Your logic breaks down pretty easily, that's it's flaw.

[texasdave]

Are we held responsible for natural tragedies that occur beyond our control? No, so a woman would not and should not be held accountable for a miscarriage. Unless she induced it deliberately somehow. The morning after pill should be outlawed. If she has no access to it she cannot use it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave Oh yeah, that nasty ole baby sucking the nutrients out of that poor woman.

Nice sarcasm. You, sir, are a brilliant scholar and rhetorician, a master of the fine art of repartee; truly you are a paragon of eloquence, one whose shining example will stand, like a city on a hill, as a beacon, guiding the poor benighted fools to the true path to debating wisdom.

I can play these stupid games as long as you want to, and probably better than you can. I was under the impression that we were debating, and in debate we use facts and reason to establish a point, not pathetically weak appeals to emotion.

Quote by: texasdave What a load of you-know-what.

I'm afraid I don't know. You shouldn't assume that I do, since you know what you do when you assume . . .

Quote by: texasdave Talk about pathetic arguments.

You mean like the "Neener Neener you're a stinkhead" rebuttal you seem to favor when faced with the simple fact that a fetus behaves like a parasite?

Quote by: texasdave And that one right is " an inalienable right granted by our creator. The right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Ever heard that in school?

Very good. Let's examine that, shall we? LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since pregnancy and childbirth is harder on a woman physically than is abortion, forcing a woman to carry the child to term would be risking her life, thus infringing on her right to life. Now emphasize the second phrase there: life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. The mother has the right to liberty, which means you don't get to tell her what to do with her body unless she has committed a crime. And now emphasize the third phrase: life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That means that if the mother wants her body to be free of the fetus, if it would make her happier to be not pregnant, that she has the right to remove the fetus from her body as long as she does not infringe on the rights of another person. Which she doesn't. Because the fetus isn't a person.

Get it straight: as sad as it may be that babies have to die to protect the rights of the mother, sometimes they do. What doesn't have to happen is people being losing their rights because you think God told you to breed, or because of a biological accident.

I would much prefer it if we could keep this conversation civil, so if all you're going to respond with is how pathetic my arguments are, we're going to call it a day.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=texasdave;396148]

Oh yeah, that nasty ole baby sucking the nutrients out of that poor woman. What a load of you-know-what. Talk about pathetic arguments. And that one right is " an inalienable right granted by our creator. The right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Ever heard that in school?

Babies do suck the nutrients out of the mother's body, that's why we have prenatal care. They also push a woman's organs to get them out of their way. They cause a woman to have stretch marks, saggy boobs, and I could go on, but they do a lot of damage. Women can and still do die from childbirth. Have you pushed out an 8-lb. baby? Extremely painful. Extremely. You think you are going to die. A friend of mine had to start wearing glasses after she had a kid and her teeth went bad. She didn't have prenatal care.

It's true I do believe abortion should be obsolete by now, but the fact is it's always been around. Women have a good 20 years of fertility, and if they are like my neighbor she had a kid every 2 yrs. She has 10 kids. Can you imagine the out of control world population if we had no way to stop having so many kids? Look at China and India. Very sad. Africa. Very sad.

The church has been indecisive on when a child is viable. The old Catholic Church, not modern day, said it was when quickening began. I think that's a pretty good time-table. When a woman feels life she needs to go through with the pregnancy, but before that I think it's reasonable to terminate it if this is not what she wants to go through.

The woman should have a choice. It's really the right thing to have a choice. A safe choice.

All the mumbo-jumbo crap about knowing what she's doing yada yada yada is baloney. Sex was meant to be powerful, and it is hard to control all of the time. This is a fact of life. Saying we should know what we're doing every minute means we would be saints, and that's just not going happen. Gotta be realistic.:)

MHO is a baby is viable at 4 to 5 months of pregnancy. It still can't live on it's own for another 30 yrs., but this is when life is irrefutable.:)

[Osborn F Enready]

A fetus becomes a person, a human individual, and a legal entity at birth.
Until then, the mother is the only "person" involved, that has rights.

[Jubloz]

Dunno if this has been mentioned, but the dictionary defines a parasite as:

An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

A fetus sounds a lot like a parasite.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes Jubloz, a lot of people have mentioned it, and concur with your assesment, me included.

However, some people can't look at this objectively, so they deny that fact.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes Jubloz, a lot of people have mentioned it, and concur with your assesment, me included. However, some people can't look at this objectively, so they deny that fact.

Ahh, my bad. I've only been on Volconvo for a week and just now entered this thread. People are emotional creatures with sentimental attachments, it's no surprise abortion causes so much conflict.

I like your avatar btw.

[texasdave]

Marilyn Monroe,
Very few women die in childbirth. And saying saggy boobs and stretch marks are damage is just stupid. And vain. Would you like to know how much damage abortion causes? Some women who have abortions are unable to conceive afterwards. Others are killed by the procedure. The vast majority are emotionally scarred. And that's just the damage to the woman. The unborn child is always killed. And not just that child but every human being that that unborn child would have ever conceived. Abortion kills babies and destroys generations. We have murdered 47 million of our own citizens since 1973. Want to know why Social Security is insolvent? Because it was designed to work with a growing population and its framers never even dreamed in the 30's that abortion would come along 40 years later. So we have killed 47 million taxpayers PLUS the children they would have had so add maybe another 10 million or so that are gone from the tax roles. Abortion, therefore, endangers the elderly who live on Social Security. They will have to absorb reduced benefits to keep the system solvent AND we'll all have to pay higher taxes. Guess what? That harms you! That harms the women you supposedly want to help with providing abortion. That harms born children. Congratulations abortion supporters you are part of the problem with Social Security. Thanks a lot.