Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[myxomatosis]

You're spot on Loesoweekuff.

The question is when does a 'baby' become a 'human being/person' with rights equal to our own. You can't point to a specific point of pregnancy because its a gradual process. The baby just doesn't come fully formed at conception, wait 9 months and pop-out. Its grows gradually. Pro-lifers just don't understand this. There is no reason to give rights to something without a brain. Many a believe a 'soul' pops into the baby at conception. They don't realize that all must have a physical basis.

With no formed physical basis for thought, pain, emotions, etc... it has no moral worth!



Read this for thoughts on when the fetus becomes a person.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ChinUp Marilyn Monroe .. Why are you ignoring abortion as a last resort form of birth control ?

Because of my upbringing, and from living, I tend to shy away from abortion as an alternative to BC. Abortion should only be used as a last resort in MHO. I'm not against it, but do feel it should only be used because other methods failed.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow I think women suffer more from abortions than men do (physical and psycological damages). Thus I think its fair the woman recieves a 'veto' over getting an abortion. What I am saying is, its better a woman can veto-force a man into fatherhood than a man veto-force a woman into an abortion. However... I think there is some serious difficulties if you consider wether a woman should have the right to enforce an abortion against the mans will. What do you guys think?

In the US it's up to the woman. Men have tried to get women not to abort possibly, but the law says it's the woman's right. I'm sorry for men, but it has to be someone's choice, and since the mother has the burden she should have the final say.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ChinUp How would a woman feel about being forced into parenthood with somebody they don't want to have children with & their child being taken from them ?

This is why abortion was legalized. Women were forced into parenthood and much more, for milleniums.

Hence the need for abortion. Or do you think the risk involved in abortion is of greater importance than family sovereignty ? Greater importance than children growing up knowing their parents cared enough about their reproductive facilities & each other to plan pregnancy rather than just have kids by accident irregardless of the fathers wishes ? Having children out of fear cannot ever be a good choice iMO. The motivations behind having children need to be mature responsible & adult.

The risktaking is up to the woman. I don't think most kids care whether their parents were concerned about their reproductive facilities. Kids are a pretty selfish lot.

Once people can reproduce it's all a toss-up. Kids can have kids. There isn't always maturity involved. The motivations have nothing to do with the sex act. People don't think like that, and it would really take the fun out if they did.

[Esters]

I see you are running over the same ground, and haven't addressed a single one of my arguments. This can only mean one thing.
For sake of useless repetition, I will continue to refute this crap.

Quote by: ChinUp .. animals only have sex to make babies. If you don't understand this you are not in touch with your humanity only your animalistic nature. Animals cannot reason or or deal with altruistic responsibility, time scale doesn't make much sense to them."

This makes no real sense at all. What I think you are trying to say is that because humans get something out of the act of sex, and animals don't (but they actually do), that therefore we should have the right to kill our offspring...
Like I said, no actual reasoning here.
But you are right about one thing- animals have no real understanding of responsibility, only instincts. Which means that we as people who understand cause and effect, responsibility, and the inalienable rights of all human beings should have no question when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and innocent.
Animals are the ones who kill and abandon their young for their own survival sake. By supporting abortion rights are you saying that we people, who have rational reasoning, should act like animals in this way?

Quote by: ChinUp Babies need love & care for the next 20 years @ least, & parents that can teach them how to receive & offer love & care..

I assure you, two people who are old enough to conceive a child understand this completely, and thereby acknowledge potential parenthood when they have unprotected sex.

Quote by: ChinUp just pushing children into existance out of guilt is cruel.

Whether or not you experience "guilt" does NOT change the fact that it's your RESPONSIBILITY to live up to your actions rather than make the child who did nothing pay the price in its death!

You say "pushing children into existence" is cruel. You are defending the argument that letting a child be born and live a life is more cruel than ending its life in the womb. This is so backwards I don't even know where to start.
And it certainly isn't cruel to the parents, who acknowledged the risk of pregnancy upon having sex and whether or not they like the outcome are responsible for their actions.

Quote by: ChinUp Unless you both want a family abort.

You would have desire supersede life...

Quote by: ChinUp You needn't see sex as a scary gamble, you are allowed to love your body & its natural desires.

There's nothing wrong with loving your body and its natural desires if you accept responsibility for what you do with your body, SO THIS ARGUMENT GOES OUT THE WINDOW.

Sex isn't a scary gamble if you are ready to accept the prospect of parenthood. And if you are ready to take adult responsibility for the adult act of sex, there is no gamble.

Quote by: ChinUp Just be responsible & respectful, practice family planning.

This statement contradicts your actual view. With abortion legal people don't have to be responsible and respectful, or practice family planning. They can just kill the child if they want to have sex but don't want the child. Abortion is irresponsible, utterly disrespectful, and removes the family part in "family planning".

Quote by: ChinUp as soon as you use fear & guilt to champion your argument you defeat yourself. Fear & guilt lead to suffering.

Fear and guilt are only felt by those who abort their children, and suffering by the child.

Your view is that 40 million babies should die in the womb each year so that people can have all the sex they want without having any responsibility.

As soon as you use unlimited, negligent pleasure to champion your argument, you defeat yourself.

[vash the sane]

Quote by: Esters I see you are running over the same ground, and haven't addressed a single one of my arguments. This can only mean one thing. For sake of useless repetition, I will continue to refute this crap. This makes no real sense at all. What I think you are trying to say is that because humans get something out of the act of sex, and animals don't (but they actually do), that therefore we should have the right to kill our offspring... Like I said, no actual reasoning here. But you are right about one thing- animals have no real understanding of responsibility, only instincts. Which means that we as people who understand cause and effect, responsibility, and the inalienable rights of all human beings should have no question when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and innocent. Animals are the ones who kill and abandon their young for their own survival sake. By supporting abortion rights are you saying that we people, who have rational reasoning, should act like animals in this way? I assure you, two people who are old enough to conceive a child understand this completely, and thereby acknowledge potential parenthood when they have unprotected sex. Whether or not you experience "guilt" does NOT change the fact that it's your RESPONSIBILITY to live up to your actions rather than make the child who did nothing pay the price in its death! You say "pushing children into existence" is cruel. You are defending the argument that letting a child be born and live a life is more cruel than ending its life in the womb. This is so backwards I don't even know where to start. And it certainly isn't cruel to the parents, who acknowledged the risk of pregnancy upon having sex and whether or not they like the outcome are responsible for their actions. You would have desire supersede life... There's nothing wrong with loving your body and its natural desires if you accept responsibility for what you do with your body, SO THIS ARGUMENT GOES OUT THE WINDOW. Sex isn't a scary gamble if you are ready to accept the prospect of parenthood. And if you are ready to take adult responsibility for the adult act of sex, there is no gamble. This statement contradicts your actual view. With abortion legal people don't have to be responsible and respectful, or practice family planning. They can just kill the child if they want to have sex but don't want the child. Abortion is irresponsible, utterly disrespectful, and removes the family part in "family planning". Fear and guilt are only felt by those who abort their children, and suffering by the child. Your view is that 40 million babies should die in the womb each year so that people can have all the sex they want without having any responsibility. As soon as you use unlimited, negligent pleasure to champion your argument, you defeat yourself.

Would you prohibit all abortions, even before the fetus developes a brain?

[ChinUp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe This is why abortion was legalized. Women were forced into parenthood and much more, for milleniums.

yet you think its fine for men to be treated like that

[doc303]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I didn't say "male chauvinism". I was referring to only one poster, and concluded this through his attitudes that reproduction can be entirely planned. Women can be chauvinistic, also. Chauvinism is a devotion to one's own race, sex etc. I have never heard that any form of BC is 100% effective even if you follow the instructions.

Chauvinism (pronounced /ˈʃoʊvɪnɪzm̩/) is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. (wikipedia)

As for BC, abstention always works ! - just say no and wait - why is it so difficult?

[linda_mary_13]

I think life is initiated in a place before the flesh, and is placed into the flesh. It is that something, that energy, that spirit,that light , that can't be measured by science. It is the difference between a viable pregnancy or not. It is the will of God. And for that reason, when we assert our will, we must contemplate the ramifications. To me, the act of aborting is the ultimate act of selfishness. The woman, even though it is her body, choses herself over the fetus. Free will is to follow God's will or not. To be or not to be. That is the question.

[Tycoon]

To me, the act of aborting is the ultimate act of selfishness. The woman, even though it is her body, choses herself over the fetus.

And when the woman doesn't want to bring a baby into the world because she can't support it? What about homeless women or prostitutes that get pregnant?

What about when a woman carrying a deadly sex-linked disease becomes pregnant and the baby tests positive for the disease?

It is not simply a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of circumstance.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Esters What about tiny babies born premature who are not "prominant appearing" yet still manage to survive, or people born with deformities, diseases, and physical limitations that limit their "active individuality". Or those who are never even aware of their individuality because of mental retardation? You are saying that these people don't have "life".

They have life. I never said they do not have life !!! I only said as per science, "for experiencing pain one should have fully developed brain and nervous system"

Wrong. Life has nothing to do with your state of appearance, activity, or individual consciousness. These are all purely groundless means that people use someone else's "quality of life" to determine their status as a human. History shows this kind of thinking is dangerous.

I also agree that life has nothing to do with anything except, "Individual Consciousness". By that, I never mean intellect development after age of 1 or 2 years. I mean, the feeling by a structure that it is something as individual, some sort of ego HE IS SOMETHING!!!

ALL human life is sacred and has intrinsic value that cannot be removed.

I think not only human life but all sort of life, even animals, birds, insects, micro-organism, plants, which we consider has LIFE, has intintrinsic value that should not be removed. But life gets removed at one's death time.

Amen.

Su-Amen !!

You can doubt it all you want, but you'll have to argue with Steven Calvin M.D. perinatologist, neurologist Dr. Paul Ranalli, and Robert J. White PhD professor of neurosurgery at Case Western University (just a few). It is a tested fact that the pain part of the nervous system has developed by 19-20 weeks. And obviously the child does not need a fully developed brain to experience pain, because it is still developing long after birth.

Your perinatologist and neurologist also say 19-20 weeks, which comes to my 120-130 days, when fetus just start moving independantly as an individual because of nereve functions !!

This is absurd. You do not need "conscious individuality" in order to experience pain. Animals are not self-conscious, but they have the potential to experience pain and suffer. Children are not self-conscious until nearly a year and a half of age. Are you saying that because a child is not an "independent conscious individual" that it cannot experience pain?

No my saying is not aburd !! It is definitely absurd to call "Animals are not self-conscious". Had it be not so, how could they eat, move, sleep, fight, have sex and the like. All this shows they are definitely self -conscious. Just touch bitch's puppy and see how it reacts to you....you say they are not self-conscious.

It is also funny to think that a child is not an "independent conscious individual". You are confusing consciousness with some intelligence develelopement. In first paragraph, I said consciousness I mean to say that conscious person is that who looks alive to others and to he himself and feels he exist himself as something, which even most inteligent person or no science has been able to find what a consciousness means in reality.

If in your opinion self-consciousness is a means to distinguish the living from the non-living, than you are saying that our constitution should allow the death of children under a year and half of age, as well as people in comatose or even a dream state. I doubt you believe this.

Defintely not. I have cleared my point as above. But, from your understanding of self -consciousness, not only dreaming but all sleeping people should be allowed to die/get killed....that is not my point !!

According to who, you? Are you a perinatologist, neurologist, or neurosurgeon?

I am rational thinker !!!

I would say that only in cases where the mother risks certain death by pregnancy (which is less than .2% of all pregnancies), where it is a choice between two lives, the mother can choose to live and abort the child. But not because the child is "hers" to destroy or let live, or because she is the more valuable human, but because between her and the infant, she is the only one who can understand and communicate that decision.

Point is rape, diseases, deformed fetus, lack of resources for taking care of baby later ...etc as the reasons for abortions.

I would repeat abortions if unavoidable should be performed at the ealiest.

But I don't believe a mother's "emotions" are grounds to end the life of a person. Because in that case, you are weighing the actual LIFE of one person with the emotions of another. Life outweighs emotions. Period.

Emotions, I said from positive angle. As time proceeds the mother does not want to go for abortion as she develops love for the fetus (baby). from that angle also if need be abortion shold be performed early so that bond of love does not get stregthened.

[doc303]

Quote by: Tycoon And when the woman doesn't want to bring a baby into the world because she can't support it? What about homeless women or prostitutes that get pregnant? What about when a woman carrying a deadly sex-linked disease becomes pregnant and the baby tests positive for the disease? It is not simply a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of circumstance.

The first you mentioned are walking on the white line - mid highway and should be held accountable for their lifestyle. Lots of folks would love to adopt any such baby.


The typical "false positive" statistics for such laboratory tests approaches 25%, Ty - sound like a good gamble for you? Wrong 1/4 of the time? False negatives are an issue as well.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: doc303 Chauvinism (pronounced /??o?v?n?zm?/) is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. (wikipedia) As for BC, abstention always works ! - just say no and wait - why is it so difficult?

Too strong of an urge. Most don't have the self-control, which is pretty obvious by the billions of people on this planet.

[linda_mary_13]

It is simply a matter of right or wrong. The matter of circumstance is arbitrary. Based on your logic of "circumstance" Suzy-Q could opt for an abortion because she is having a bad hair day. If this became the criteria for opting for existence what might happen to you or me , while on this planet? Maybe that logic could apply not only during the pregnancy but from K through 12. Or maybe in all the poorest nations of the world. OR maybe for those who disagree with you.

[Tycoon]

The typical "false positive" statistics for such laboratory tests approaches 25%, Ty - sound like a good gamble for you? Wrong 1/4 of the time? False negatives are an issue as well.

There are circumstances where the test isn't even needed because the parents can only have a baby with that sex-linked disease.

[Tycoon]

Suzy-Q could opt for an abortion because she is having a bad hair day.

Who said that? I was listing serious reasons for a mother not wanting to bring a baby into the world. Maybe you can argue that she could put the baby up for adoption, but there are still sex-linked diseases.

Or the mother could have AIDS. There are plenty of reasons I'm sure that you shouldn't be trivializing just because you wouldn't understand them.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Maybe society should judge wether a woman has a right to an abortion or not based on the circumstance?

I would say there are circumstances where it is verging on essential, and others where it is not so right

[linda_mary_13]

If your friend was shot in the street and he lay there dying obvious to you he was not going to make it, do you shoot him to get it over with or do you try to save him? And why save him, when his quality of life is questionable. We save him for reasons that are not scientific. The urge to save him comes from a place of love, that place being unidentified by the scientists.We respect his right to be until he no longer does,so why shouldn't that same respect exist with the fetus that scientists can prove exists?

[vash the sane]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 I think life is initiated in a place before the flesh, and is placed into the flesh. It is that something, that energy, that spirit,that light , that can't be measured by science. It is the difference between a viable pregnancy or not. It is the will of God. And for that reason, when we assert our will, we must contemplate the ramifications. To me, the act of aborting is the ultimate act of selfishness. The woman, even though it is her body, choses herself over the fetus. Free will is to follow God's will or not. To be or not to be. That is the question.

I had no idea we should make legislature because you "feel" it's not right. Murder and such are wrong because we use reason and logic to decide their morality, and it is wrong.(with some exceptions)

If you can provide a logical and reasonable explanation you should, but leave magic and mythology out of it; you won't win.

[doc303]

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on the matter of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that granted women the constitutional right to have an abortion. In the 35 years since the court's ruling there have been more than 50 million abortions in the United States.

50 million unwanted children - 1/10 th of which were possibly to be physically or mentally disabled !

Sounds fair to me ! - unless one was to be an Einstein, Curie, ML King, etc - we will never know.

Doesn't that bother anybody besides me?