Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Halofan48]

no, everybody should be able to. That's what i meant.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Evangelina I believe abortion can be justified if one of these things happens: 1) the woman is raped or by some horrid means got pregnant 2)the baby has some kind of life-threatening or crippling disease 3)if the baby will harm the mother (while still in the body)

It can be justified if the mother has no money as well. It's easy to find justifiable reasons that's why it became legal. The procedure is as old as mankind, but it wasn't always safe. I think safety is why it was legalized.

There have been even crueler things in history and sometimes even today, like infanticide.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Life begins at conception for all life forms. Initially, even after birth, that life is dependent. Humans have the possibility to have an intelligent consciousness different from and superior to all other life forms. The right to life argues that life should be terminated only with just cause. Just cause has not been defined as useless, unconscious, non-beneficial, not ideal, or helpless. Some argue that the special position of humans is not intrinsic, but dependent on differing or unknown criteria: its worth to the mother, distinct physical properties like a hearbeat or brain wave or viability outside the mother's body, or intelligent self-awareness. Given the widespread disagreement as to exactly what constitutes justifiable termination of human life it seems illogical for society to deem any position as correct for 100% of its citizens without the vote of the entire citizenry. The right of the people to decide for themselves what parameters allow for the termination of life should be upheld. This thread is a testament to the ability of the people to investigate the issue. An appointed body of a select few should not decide this issue. Otherwise, we should appoint an oligarchy that rules us until a member dies and another is appointed in his place. Since the definition of murder and its penalty is reserved to each state, the definition of life and its protection should be, too. You'll probably have 50 (plus territories) definitions of what that is. And that's the way it should be.

[myxomatosis]

Good post Joshua.
This is a murky issue and it should be left to the states.

[Flip Jackson]

Quote by: big_lefty So you want irresponsible people having kids, then? Wonderful. What you re basically proposing is punishing people for having sex by forcing them to bear and raise children they do not want. What specific social benefit do you claim your proposal would accomplish? I hear you saying that you feel allowing abortion increases sexual irresponsibility, so if this were so, it would make sense that disallowing it would decrease it. What evidence do you offer that this is actually so? Do you really think most people decide whether or not to have sex based on the availability of abortion? Abortion is a surgical procedure which, in addition to be highly unpleasant, it is inherently dangerous, as all surgery is. Do you honestly think people take it so lightly?

First of all, abortion is relatively safe, at least according to Wikipedia.
Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week.[26][27] Abortion methods, like most minimally invasive procedures, carry a small potential for serious complications."

Besides not all abortion even involves surgery.

I do not wish to "punish" people as you put it. However, destroying a possible child for convenience issues doesn`t seem right on any account.

Since when is it considered bad to ask people to answer for their actions? So can we not ask people to pay for things that they put on their credit card irresponsibly?

Sex isn`t a "need." It is a choice, and as in all choices, has consequences. One of them is a possibility of becoming pregnant. Irresponsibility is no reason to remove consequences of actions. And even if you choose to shirk that responsibility, there are better alternatives, such as adoption.

Nice way to twist my words to make me look like the bad guy though. Heaven forbid we ask for some sort of responsibility for our actions in this country. We wouldn`t want to "impede" someone`s life by asking them to answer for their choices.

[Derach]

Having an abortion does not absolve the mother of responsibility for her actions (presumably having consentual sex with a man of legal age). There are a whole set of consequences that go along with choosing to have an abortion ... mental and physical. Some women are psychologically tormented, some struggle with telling their spouse years later that they have had one, some become infertile. All choices and actions have consequences, even the ones that are designed to avoid the consequence of another action (for instance, lying).

The pro life argument that abortions somehow serve as a way to avoid resonsibility (like defaulting on a credit card balance) is ludicrous. We have no way to avoid the consequences to our actions ... we can only alter them.

Besides, what's wrong with trying to minimize the consequence of a bad decision? If you have a variable rate mortgage, is it wrong to re-structure it as interest rates rise? Is that avoiding responsibility? ... Whose place is it to say? ... the Federal Government?????? If any entity has forfeited the right to make judgments on avoiding responsibility, I would assert that the fed has ... how often have they raided social security to pay for other things .... don't let the fed tell women they are avoiding responsibility for their actions!!

[Anmon]

At conception, it must be alive or it would not grow?

[Morality Games]

At conception, it must be alive or it would not grow?

Your share of rights depend on your existential power (the strength of your ego, intellect, conscience, etc), not on being a life form. Hence why animals and plants get such a raw deal. Something just conceived lacks even a nervous system, so it wouldn't feel, emote (emotions), think, have memories, or anything of the sort.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Morality Games Your share of rights depend on your existential power (the strength of your ego, intellect, conscience, etc), not on being a life form. Hence why animals and plants get such a raw deal. Something just conceived lacks even a nervous system, so it wouldn't feel, emote (emotions), think, have memories, or anything of the sort.

But its not a plant is it, or an animal, its a human being.
So why should they get the same raw deal, the same lack of rights?
These things you say it doesn't have, if allowed to, will develop incredibly fast.

[Maryjane]

Am I the only one that sees there are a few here against abortion but don't seem to have a problem with killing a few innocent "human beings" with the death penalty?

[Anmon]

A few possible innocent human beings a year if that, and truly sad that would be, verses millions of slaughtered innocent possible babies in the west each year, mostly for the disgusting reason of convenience.
Women and men who do this absolutely revolt me, I would throw them out of my house if they came in and said they had aborted for that reason, it would take days to get their characterless worthless gutless lazy revolting stink out of my house and nostrils.

[Maryjane]

A few possible innocent human beings a year if that,

So if you or a close family member, say your wife or child, were one of those innocent being put to death, it would be ok?

(The rest of your post is an emotional rant that serves no purpose)

[Anmon]

=Maryjane;495321]So if you or a close family member, say your wife or child, were one of those innocent being put to death, it would be ok?

No, speaking for my family it would be bad, but I would go after the guys who made the mistake, not the system.
And if it was me, well I would take comfort that in my death at least hundreds of murderers, rapists etc that hurt all the innocent people you care about, are going with me.

[Morality Games]

But its not a plant is it, or an animal, its a human being. So why should they get the same raw deal, the same lack of rights? These things you say it doesn't have, if allowed to, will develop incredibly fast.

Following that logic, if Person A killed a woman on the verge of being pregnant (her husband would have impregnated her that very evening) then he is also morally reprehensible for the death of that unconceived fetus. This because your logic necessitates that non-actual entities be treates as actual entities. That is, in the case of our disagreement, that non-actual egos, intellects, and consciences be treated as actual egos, intellects, and consciences.

Moreover, I would like to refine what I said earlier -- existenial power is a factor in the distribution of rights, but to be more specific, it is the flow of existential power which determines the distribution of rights -- if rights were conferred proportionately to existential power, then more self-aware smarter, ethical people would have greater rights than less self-aware, dumber, and unethical people.

As it is, democratic society has mechanisms in place which realign the flow of existential power to create an artificial equality where people of all types enjoy the same amount of rights. Fetuses are typically exempt from consideration because they contribute no existential power due to their being the mental equivalents to rocks.

A few possible innocent human beings a year if that, and truly sad that would be, verses millions of slaughtered innocent possible babies in the west each year, mostly for the disgusting reason of convenience.

Your thinking lacks logical cleanliness wherever it is expressed. Aren't we killing those possibly innocent human beings because it is convenient with reference to disposing undesirable elements?

Women and men who do this absolutely revolt me, I would throw them out of my house if they came in and said they had aborted for that reason, it would take days to get their characterless worthless gutless lazy revolting stink out of my house and nostrils.

A person who engages in extended resentment of this type strikes me as lacking character.

[marijuanajake]

It is a human at conception. No one has the right to kill an innocent human because they don't want to take on the responsibility of their actions. Even if the mother's life is in danger does not give her the right to an abortion.

[Anmon]

Note how the lefts always refer to the developing baby as embryo, fetus, trimester stages etc or simply as 'it' not even mentioning a sex.
Just to remove the connection of the baby's humanity from peoples minds, and probably their own as well.

[WakeTFU]

Technically, and scientifically YES it begins at conception. Soo, there's really no need for a poll here.

Perhaps you mean to ask when it's illegal to abort a pregnancy...which is all a matter of religious/spiritual opinion. We can all agree there's a line there somewhere. Obviously, killing the child moments before birth is murder and flushing the uterus before conception isn't...so what makes the difference and when does it happen?

Obviously, legally, we should all vote on such issues, taking into account that whether it's legal or not it's still going to be done; so really we should stop caring about the technical 'when does life begin' and allow people to abort as they pleaseand if you still want to make a difference preach abstinence.

\*two cents*/

[Morality Games]

Technically, and scientifically YES it begins at conception. Soo, there's really no need for a poll here.

Don't reference scientific vocabulary as a determinant to prove a point in a language game revolving around a metaphysical problem.

[Reflechir]

"At conception, it must be alive or it would not grow?"
A fungus living under your toenail is considered "alive" also and it grows

[Anmon]

So now we are comparing human life as no more important than fungus, what about mould?