Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave Bnet, Then you would be murdering your own son or daughter. You don't have kids do you?

I have 2 kids. I have the choice. A son and daughter is someone whom I love and cherish for a long time. That I had the choice, took it, and glad for it. I wouldn't be murdering a son or daughter, just a broken condom mistake. Unless it was born, which would be huge unneeded stress on my family, and I cared for it, then it would be my son or daughter. That is how I have defined it.

[texasdave]

Bnet,
Look into the faces of your children. Watch them sleep. Then decide if the world is better off with them or without them. If they'd be better off dead. If you had aborted one of them knowing what you know now, you'd be sorry. Be wise. Be sorry in advance. Abortion denies someone the love your kids have. Every kid deserves a chance.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave Bnet, Look into the faces of your children. Watch them sleep. Then decide if the world is better off with them or without them. If they'd be better off dead. If you had aborted one of them knowing what you know now, you'd be sorry. Be wise. Be sorry in advance. Abortion denies someone the love your kids have. Every kid deserves a chance.

I don't want the living and loved children dead, but overpopulation would be worse. Imagine them living in a crowded society with little food. I would rather be aborted then live in that pain. Abortion can help many people.

[texasdave]

The world is not overpopulated. That is a myth. And it would not change the fact that all kids deserve better than abortion. They deserve a chance like your kids. Abortion ain't love,brother.

[Bnet505]

Quote by: texasdave The world is not overpopulated. That is a myth. And it would not change the fact that all kids deserve better than abortion. They deserve a chance like your kids. Abortion ain't love,brother.

It is not overpopulated now. It could become if we make everytime a condom breaks a trip to the nursery ward. Those kids would love abortion if they where given that or a overpopulated Earth. Besides, according to your religion, wouldn't they just get to spend all eternity in Heaven. Not waste time on Earth, right? The it would only be hurting the parents, if they cared.

[pikatore]

Ahem... excuse me.

APPEAL TO EMOTION

Every time you use this fallacy, I will refer you to that page. So you can hammer that really bad habit out of your argument.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, You ever see that movie with Tom Cruise playing a hit man. I think it was called " Collateral" or something like that. Well Tom Cruise shoots a guy and he falls out a window onto a waiting cab below. The cabbie says, " You killed that guy" To which Tom Cruise replies, " No, I just shot him, the bullets and the fall killed him." That is what your " Sex doesn't cause pregnancy" argument sounds like. Semantics to dodge responsibility.

You ever see that movie with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman, where Dustin Hoffman plays an autistic savant named Rainman? That's what your argument sounds like to me. "Yeah, the fetus is definitely a human, definitely human, yeah. Almost time for church, yeah, have to go to church now, yeah."

Sex doesn't cause pregnancy. I'm sorry if that doesn't mesh with the birds and the bees talk your parents gave you when you were a kid; it's an easy mistake to make, and one pretty much everybody makes. We correlate sex with pregnancy because one is necessary for the other to happen. But how far back are we going to take this? For pregnancy to occur, both participants have to live past puberty; maybe it is their parents' fault, for making it possible for the two people to have sex and therefore to get pregnant. Or maybe it's just all god's fault for making us the way we are.

Here's an easier way to think about it: the choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant. The one does not equal the other, because the one choice does not always lead to the specific result of pregnancy. People can choose to have sex, and not get pregnant, and because of rape and date rape, people can get pregnant without choosing to have sex. How can the two choices be seen as one and the same?

Answer: they can't. So there's no point in arguing that forced pregnancy is simply the consequence of the woman's choice to have sex; it just doesn't work in a reasonable society.

[O-dehlay]

Its to crazy. People get charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and we need to preserve the earth for "future generations", but in some circumstances its ok to kill that future generation? Its not like somehow magically that fetus is going to grow into something non human. Is it not a fact that it will be human. If it will certinly become human at what point does it become human?

[Mia]

Os, I really want to continue this with you. You said there would be no reasonable circumstance under which a baby should be killed after birth, but before the cord is cut. I agree. I say the same for a baby at 8 months. It can live outside its mother at this point, there is no justificaton for aborting it. They've come so far with preemies, my friend gave birth at 5 months an he is fine.

So we agree that a line should be drawn somewhere, where is that line, and on what basis? It must be more than the technical line between what you term parasitic.....otherwise it would be fine to give birth and kill before cutting the cord.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: O-dehlay Its to crazy. People get charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and we need to preserve the earth for "future generations", but in some circumstances its ok to kill that future generation? Its not like somehow magically that fetus is going to grow into something non human. Is it not a fact that it will be human. If it will certinly become human at what point does it become human?

First of all, people shouldn't be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman, because the unborn child is not a person and so cannot be murdered under our laws. It should either be considered a specific form of assault or a property crime -- or simply a special circumstance in the murder of the mother.
Secondly, who says we need to preserve the earth for future generations? I think we need to preserve it for the generation that is alive now; if there are going to be serious consequences resulting from our treatment of the environment in the next fifty years, then that affects me -- I plan to be alive for that time.
And who says that aborting one fetus, or ten fetuses, or even 40 million fetuses, is in some way a danger to posterity? Abortion has been legal for thirty years now; have you noticed our population shrinking?

As for the human thing, please pay attention. Nobody is saying that it isn't human. It just isn't a person.

[Mia]

Charging people with double murder was just a back-door way of asserting that fetuses are individuals. Once that is accepted it paves the way to make abortion illegal completely.

[pikatore]

Quote by: O-dehlay If it will certinly become human at what point does it become human?

It having the potential to grow into a human being, has no bearing upon WHEN it does. Your point makes little sense.

I've already said about a trillion times in this thread, when there is a sinusoidal brain wave, at around 20-24 weeks, that is when I would be happy to draw the line, because it becomes sentient.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: pikatore It having the potential to grow into a human being, has no bearing upon WHEN it does. Your point makes little sense. I've already said about a trillion times in this thread, when there is a sinusoidal brain wave, at around 20-24 weeks, that is when I would be happy to draw the line, because it becomes sentient.

What does drawing the line mean to you? Would no abortions be allowed, other than in the case of a medical emergency? Any exceptions? And do you think it would be better to draw a line with time, or with a specific test for the sinusoidal brain wave?

I have a problem drawing any line before birth, because the fetus is still parasitizing the mother, but I do think there can be a reasonable expectation for the mother to have made up her mind before (X) occurs and that after that she can be seen as having given her consent to carrying the child to term. I'm not sure how to justify it, though.

[pikatore]

While the parasitism is a good argument, I think that it would be a better idea to stop women from aborting thier fetuses after that time, for the same reason we have to kill animals in the food industry humanely. A conscious 'being' as such exists when a sinusiodal brain wave exists, we know this. And my whole argument focused on the CRITICAL factors that make us human. And I believe the most important one is having human consciousness. Not just being awake, because killing a sleeping person is no better than killing an awake person, but actually BEING. While it is true that the feotus is still parasitising off the mother at that stage, and hasn't fully physically developed into a human, I think that drawing the line there would give mothers ample time to abort, whilst silencing pro lifers.

In those rare cases where the mother wasn't aware she was pregnant, I believe that women who realise they are pregnant, have a lot of time to decide whether or not to abort. Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mia said: That it insane. By the time it is born, it no longer needs the cord, it is no longer parasitic.....my point is the baby was hardly different 12 hours before this, two weeks before this.....the baby becomes a baby long before birth.

Regardless, the baby is STILL parasiticly dependent until severed.

Mia said: If you were to argue that until it reaches the point it is capable of surviving outside of the mother, I could get my head around that.

Capable, as in "doing it", which it can't until severed from the cord, by "delivery" being either c-section or vaginal birth.

This has nothing to do with "theoretical" or "biological" potential......
This has to do with objective reality, as in, does the entity in question meet a specific objective criteria......

Is it an individual? No.
Is it a person? No.
Is it a legal rights holding entity? No.
Is it parasiticly dependent on a rights having entity? Yes.
Is it within a rights having entity? Yes.
Can its rights be recognized without abridging the rights of the mother? No.

Mia said: But that happens long before the end of the ninth month.

Regardless when it happens, if it is in the womb, and connected to the umbillical cord, it has a lifeline, and is NOT a person, an individual OR a legal entity that is entitled to rights by being an individual, as protected in law.

inthemiddle said: It's too bad Mr Enready because I think this is going to be one of the few points on which we heartily disagree. I've read some of your posts (its hard not to as your the most avid poster on this site) and I agree with many of your political views. But on this one subject, I just dont see how I'll ever be able to fully change my mind.

Fair enough. The great thing about a self-governed society that recognizes individual rights, is that we can agree to disagree, live our lives as we see fit, and never have a problem over that issue.

The problem is, when force is used under the auspice of law to remove rights, at the behest of subjective favoritism based on "supposed" moral arguments that veer outside of the realm of universal, or common threads that bind us as a nation, it weakens the bond that ties us, and serves to remove respect for law by those being "enslaved, abused or disempowered" by the law.

inthemiddle said: You agreed here that life does begin once the sperm reaches the egg. We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You believe that right begins at birth.

At the seperation of the umbillical cord, which is the objective seperation between a rights having entity (the mother) and a newly born individual life, person and legal entity (the child).

inthemiddle said: But what we dont have the right to do is to take human life, or to impede life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

We also have a clear description of what is a citizen, a person, and an individual, of which the "fetus" meets none.

We take life everyday just by walking the planet and existing. (ants, insects, animals for food, plants, etc.)

A natural abortion can occur right up until the moment of delivery, and that being the case, I feel it is the mothers right to opt for "medical abortion" at any time up to that point, even though I DON'T support the idea of late term abortions. I don't support the idea, but I still recognize that as the RIGHT of the mother.

Why?

Malnutrition, accident, stress, trauma, and many other things can bring about death of a fetus while it "resides" and is "dependent" on the mother in the womb. The mother owns her own body, the fetus does not, until born, and severed and biologically independent.

If a "mother to be" decides to go on a hunger strike in her 8th month of pregnancy, do you think it is "justifiable" to use force against the mother to FORCE her to eat, against her will, for a month until the child is birthed?

Nature provides for abortion until delivery and seperation. We must recognize that right of the mother then, naturally, as it is obvious that we can't hold mothers for crimes they have no control over.

inthemiddle said: So even if the bill of rights does not protect the rights of unborn children, we do have laws that state it's wrong to take life. And when a mother aborts a fetus, she is in fact ending a life.

No doubt, ending a life that is WITHIN her, FULLY DEPENDENT on her, and could not EXIST without her. The rights of the fetus are by extension of the mothers rights to deliver, and without that "will to deliver", what role should government FORCE play?

inthemiddle said: Or do you consider a fetus to be closer along the lines animal life?

Yes, surely, until delivered.

inthemiddle said: Even then we have animal rights for most mamals, so that life would most likely be protected.

Animal rights is a very sensitive subject to me, and I don't support animal rights in that sense as you are conveying them, as I see so far.

inthemiddle said: And how do you explain murder cases where men are charged with double homicides on pregnant women, or do you disagree with this as well?

If the mother has intent to deliver, the fetus has rights BY EXTENSION of the mothers rights, and intent to deliver.

inthemiddle said: If a mother were to stop feeding their 2 year old child, they would probably charge the mother with a crime and take the child away.

A 2 year old is a individual, a person and a legal citizen. A fetus is none of those.

inthemiddle said: If a mother were trying to kill a child, the same principle would apply, except in the case of a fetus the child cannot be taken away.

Oh, it COULD be taken away, but only by FORCE, which is what many people wish to give government the right to do.

inthemiddle said: But the fetus is in my mind a human life.

I hold the same view, but I say a "potential" human life, because it is not yet a person, an individual, or a legal entity in the eyes of the law.

inthemiddle said: So what to you is the actual difference between a 7 month old fetus and an 7 month year old baby?

*An umbillical cord which serves as a lifeline on which the fetus is ENTIRELY dependent on ONE individual.
*The description and measure of what makes an INDIVIDUAL.
*The description and measure of what makes a PERSON.
*The description and measure of what makes a LEGAL ENTITY which falls under the auspice of the law.

inthemiddle said: Both are dependent on the mother for care.

Not true. A born child can be placed with ANY caretaker and be raised without undue effects to the mother, or the child.

A fetus, resides within and is dependent on ONE individual, the mother, and that connection is naturally exclusive.

Guardians and caretakers are interchangeable, and anyone can fill that role, where as a fetus is dependent on ONE individual, that is not interchangeable, not debateable, and is uniquely exclusive.

inthemiddle said: Neither could make a competent decision to try and pursue happiness. They both are doing what they have to, pursuing life. I guess I just cant understand how being out of the womb makes you more of a person than being in the womb.

Dependency of exclusivity, by nature, as well as what is required to remove a "fetus" from a non-willing mother..... FORCE.

inthemiddle said: Sex=Responsibilty.

Birth-Control=cost and availability.

Part of the idea of responsibility is avoiding "unwanted" outcomes if at all possible. Abortion is one means at preventing unwanted birth.

inthemiddle said: So exceptions just dont work.

Really? The idea of the jury of ones peers is built on the idea of exceptions.

inthemiddle said: If a mothers life is in "mortal" peril. Not financial, not shes depressed, not hardship peril, but if I don't terminate I am going to have a medical condition, I will bleed to death etc... At that point it becomes her decison. If she dies, does the child live? If she has the child do they both die? These are all relevant things for the mother to consider.

Everything that the mother considers, is relevant to the mother. That is what matters. At what point does the state play a role in what is relevant to the mother, and her womb?

inthemiddle said: But life is hard. Things are going to happen, and we have to live with it.

And that is why we own our own bodies, and make our own choices, and are held accountable for our actions should they infringe the RIGHTS of another. A fetus has no rights, except by extension of the will of the mother to deliver.

[inthemiddle]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Really? The idea of the jury of ones peers is built on the idea of exceptions.

your right here, and i agree entirely, and I'm ashamed to admit that when i considered the idea of exceptions, I only thought of the possible consequences of giving the power entireley to the courts and one judge, which wouldn't work and would raise lots of other legal dillemas.

But we do live in a democracy, so dont you believe that the majority should rule on whether abortions be leagalized?



I think it should remain a state issue rather than federal, and it should come down to a state vote. The same goes for some of the other social, like drug legalization, gay marriage, etc..

I dont like the federal government overreaching it's already enourmous power more than it already does.

I'm sure theres problems with that idea, but i think its a good start, and it solves portions of the national us vs them mentality by offering safe havens for areas that have majority beliefs. (within reason, a state couldn't make certain things like murder illegal).

Not to get off topic, but I also think the same should go for pro right issues as well. Banning abortion, ten commandments in courthouse, gay marriage or adoption as well. I think this is the only real compromise for the dreat divide American society is facing today.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Secondly, who says we need to preserve the earth for future generations? I think we need to preserve it for the generation that is alive now; if there are going to be serious consequences resulting from our treatment of the environment in the next fifty years, then that affects me -- I plan to be alive for that time.

Thats fine but that really dosnt effect my concerns. You have never heard of "preserving the earth for the future?". Im dealing with this specificly. Its not even something I myself believe in it is just a hypocrisy I see in my culture.

And who says that aborting one fetus, or ten fetuses, or even 40 million fetuses, is in some way a danger to posterity? Abortion has been legal for thirty years now; have you noticed our population shrinking?

? Was this directed at me or someone else?

[quote[As for the human thing, please pay attention. Nobody is saying that it isn't human. It just isn't a person.[/quote]

Humans are killable people are not? What is the difference between a person and a human? I need clarification.

[O-dehlay]

Quote by: pikatore It having the potential to grow into a human being, has no bearing upon WHEN it does. Your point makes little sense.

Why not?

[The Bacon Guy]

Because potential is meaningless. A sperm has the potential to become a baby if given the appropriate treatment and resources. However, this does not obligate the man to use his sperm in procreation. Similarly, the fact that a zygote could become a baby doesn't obligate the mother to use her bodily resources to make this happen.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: O-dehlay Thats fine but that really dosnt effect my concerns. You have never heard of "preserving the earth for the future?". Im dealing with this specificly. Its not even something I myself believe in it is just a hypocrisy I see in my culture.

If it isn't something you believe in, who do you see as the hypocrite? My comment was intended to show that I am not overly concerned with preserving the Earth for the future (which of course I have heard, but I've also heard that you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, another phrase that is meaningless to me, practically speaking) as I do not plan on breeding. This means that, in my individual case, there is no hypocrisy: I want to preserve the Earth for my own use, and I have no objections to abortion.

Quote by: O-dehlay ? Was this directed at me or someone else?

You, but it wasn't terribly important.

Quote by: O-dehlay Humans are killable people are not? What is the difference between a person and a human? I need clarification.

Everything is killable. It is our status as persons under the law that makes it a crime to kill us, not the simple fact of our humanity. A fetus is not a person, so killing it is not murder. Whether it is a crime at all depends on the mother, as she is the only one who can assign value to the fetus, IMO.

And I'm sorry, I didn't say welcome to the site. Welcome. Always good to see new people here.