Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Chris the Chees]

I believe that life begins when the foetus becomes sentient, not before that point and not after that point. So I would place that at some point around 5 months.

[fushigi]

Quote by: dotcoma I used to be pro-choice, but I thought about it for a while, and the privacy issue no longer makes sense to me. If you truly beleive life begins at conception then you have no right to privately destroy that life. It is like taking someone's life in your basement and claiming prosecution would be a violation of privacy in my opinion.

"Rights" are given to us by the state, and philosophical debates about whether we have them or not are pointless. We have the rights the state gives us. End.

The state has judged that women have the right to abort their fetus. Therefore it is their right.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: bishop how about in cases of incest? and, if yes, how does that differ with an individual using birth control to erase an accident?

Yes, I am not sure how I feel about this. The details of specific situations have not really been focused on by myself enough to give an honest answer. I was trying to give a broad opinion on my abortion stance. Also, I would argue that there are tons of people looking to adopt children, so certainly not all cases for abortion are legitimate.

i happen to see value in the details. i would argue that the zygote is a cluster of cells that has the potential to grow into human life - and i see abortion as an immoral act only if you wait and let it continue to develop (hence why i'm opposed to partial-birth or any mid/late-term abortion).

But we know what that cluster of cells is. Aren't humans above such pointless details? It is a life, and you are destroying it.

the other issue is whether the woman has dominion over her own body. the fetus is not an entity unto itself. it is, for all intensive purposes, a parasite of sorts that depends on its host for survival.

Now this I do see as an issue. I suppose I would consider it more of a responsibility, rather than a choice for the mother. Much like a mother has to sacrifice years of her life to nurture her children out of the womb, she does in my opinion have an obligation to live up to the choice she made when she had sex.

this may be off-topic, but.. while people like to frame the debate about abortion purely around its morality or lack thereof, the reality of it is that utilitarian arguments concerning abortion are equally valid. i repeat, they are just as valid as the moral arguments. the issue imo, is one of choice, where the woman has the right to own her own body and choose between her morals and utilitarian concerns. that is the essence of freedom imo, both spiritual and legal.

But Bishop, utilitarians would argue that you could kill someone if it was in your best interest. Everything cannot be for utility. The child's life is not yours to deny in my opinion. If you do not want it afterwards perhaps you should cross that bridge when it comes.

Quote by: Gorgo Now you've changed from "rights" to "our ethics." Why do you think abortion is a violation of my ethics?

In this society killing is wrong. If you do not share this value I am sorry I included you lol.

[bishop]

But we know what that cluster of cells is. Aren't humans above such pointless details? It is a life, and you are destroying it.

i dunno.. like i said, i don't see these details as being pointless. i'd characterize it as - it is life, but not A life. not anything remotely similar to what pops out after 9 months imo.

on a constitutional level, the charge that abortion kills life, therefore it should be illegal seems hypocritical to me. we've employed the death penalty for over 200 years now. doesn't that deprive someone of life? plus, at what point does the constitution apply - does it apply to the unborn? and also, forced pregnancy (i.e. when you take away choice) isn't exactly in the interest of liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman's perspective (and you could also argue that it's an invasion on her rights over her own body).

But Bishop, utilitarians would argue that you could kill someone if it was in your best interest. Everything cannot be for utility. The child's life is not yours to deny in my opinion. If you do not want it afterwards perhaps you should cross that bridge when it comes.

no, everything cannot be for utility, that's true. but, there are instances where it does matter and is legitimate.. i find it to be the epitomy of hypocrisy that anti-choice people out there stir up such a shit storm about the rights of the unborn - but once the child is born, they could give a shit less about it. if the mother happens to be poor, uneducated and ill-equipped to supporting her child - it's all her problem, and she doesn't deserve the little bit of welfare she gets either. it amazes me how the anti-choice group seems to view the mother as public enemy #1, while it loses concern for the baby once it's born.

[Gorgo]

You've already said that it isn't wrong. You've said that I have no right, but you can't tell me entity keeps that right from me.

You need to make up your mind.

We need to draw the line somewhere. We need to weigh the problems caused against the benefits gained. Abortion is a major medical procedure. The risk and cost of a major medical procedure is the only negative I can think of. The positive would be the ability of a woman to run her own life.

What am I missing?

Quote by: dotcoma In this society killing is wrong. If you do not share this value I am sorry I included you lol.

[Pooeypants]

I stand by the medical definition, if the fetus' heart is beating, then it will be considered "alive".

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo We need to draw the line somewhere. We need to weigh the problems caused against the benefits gained. Abortion is a major medical procedure. The risk and cost of a major medical procedure is the only negative I can think of. The positive would be the ability of a woman to run her own life.What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that this creates a society of people who treat pregnancy like an option that they can just abort as they please.

Quote by: bishop i dunno.. like i said, i don't see these details as being pointless. i'd characterize it as - it is life, but not A life. not anything remotely similar to what pops out after 9 months imo.

Well I guess that is just your opinion, and that's fine, but it seems silly to me. I mean you now what that zygote is.

on a constitutional level, the charge that abortion kills life, therefore it should be illegal seems hypocritical to me. we've employed the death penalty for over 200 years now. doesn't that deprive someone of life?

But people are being executed by the state because they killed someone else. What did the child do...and the state is not the one killing the baby.

plus, at what point does the constitution apply - does it apply to the unborn? and also, forced pregnancy (i.e. when you take away choice) isn't exactly in the interest of liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman's perspective (and you could also argue that it's an invasion on her rights over her own body).

The constitution technically does not apply to children either, but our society does not let the mother control her own destiny by killing them as she sees fit (sorry for the exaggerated example :) ).

no, everything cannot be for utility, that's true. but, there are instances where it does matter and is legitimate.. i find it to be the epitomy of hypocrisy that anti-choice people out there stir up such a shit storm about the rights of the unborn - but once the child is born, they could give a shit less about it. if the mother happens to be poor, uneducated and ill-equipped to supporting her child - it's all her problem, and she doesn't deserve the little bit of welfare she gets either. it amazes me how the anti-choice group seems to view the mother as public enemy #1, while it loses concern for the baby once it's born.

Well what about adoption agencies and such? Some of the poorest children can grow up to be amazing people yes?

The only thing that bothers me in the back of my mind is I know that if they remvoed row v wade that there would just be tons of underground illigal self-abortions.

[bishop]

Well I guess that is just your opinion, and that's fine, but it seems silly to me. I mean you now what that zygote is.

heh... a zygote is a cluster of human cells that can grow into a human being. i don't see this cluster of cells as being a human being at all.

and, you are not going to remove utilitarian concerns from women who become pregnant - you realize that when you talk about underground abortions. that underscores my point about how the anti-choice crowd, in general, views mothers as the "bad guy" and isn't willing to support them (or their babies) once they give birth.

an individual has dominion over their own body. earlier you suggested that she has an obligation to be responsible and must birth the child, even if she's unprepared for the reality of motherhood. is this the sort of obligation that must be required by law, or is this a moral obligation that should be left up to the individual? i choose the latter.

also, i'm not much of a fan of badnarik, but on this issue he made a good point. if the state has the right to force pregnancy (i.e. by removing the choice to have an abortion), then it would also have the right to force abortion (like china). why? because by forcing pregnancy, you've affectively said that the state has jurisdiction over a woman's own body. you want that tattoo? nope, can't have that either, the state said so.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: dotcoma You are missing the fact that this creates a society of people who treat pregnancy like an option that they can just abort as they please.

Assuming that were true, what exactly is the problem with that?

But people are being executed by the state because they killed someone else. What did the child do...and the state is not the one killing the baby.

I see no evidence of that. I see people being jailed and executed because they are poor. Sometimes these people actually committed crimes, sometimes they didn't. There is no evidence that this killing makes life better for anyone. There is evidence that abortion can improve the life of those that have already been born.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: bishop heh... a zygote is a cluster of human cells that can grow into a human being. i don't see this cluster of cells as being a human being at all.

So are you then petty enough to say something like you do not have a birthday cake if the candles are there, but they are not on the cake yet? COME ON lol..you know what it is.

and, you are not going to remove utilitarian concerns from women who become pregnant - you realize that when you talk about underground abortions. that underscores my point about how the anti-choice crowd, in general, views mothers as the "bad guy" and isn't willing to support them (or their babies) once they give birth.

No, actually if you read my first post I admitted I was pro-choice at one point. Are you denying that there are/were large amounts of underground abortions when it was not legal? Also, why are you ignoring the issue of adoption?

an individual has dominion over their own body. earlier you suggested that she has an obligation to be responsible and must birth the child, even if she's unprepared for the reality of motherhood. is this the sort of obligation that must be required by law, or is this a moral obligation that should be left up to the individual? i choose the latter.

The law protects life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. The mother and the child can both do this. If the mother does not want the child she has other options that do not deny life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for another human being.

also, i'm not much of a fan of badnarik, but on this issue he made a good point. if the state has the right to force pregnancy (i.e. by removing the choice to have an abortion), then it would also have the right to force abortion (like china). why? because by forcing pregnancy, you've affectively said that the state has jurisdiction over a woman's own body. you want that tattoo? nope, can't have that either, the state said so.

Actually, that is a terrible point. It is a slippery slope. The government has control over your body when you steal/kill someone too. They can force your body to remain in a jail cell, or die in an electric chair right?

Quote by: Gorgo Assuming that were true, what exactly is the problem with that?

Gorgo, you have just provided me with enough of your perspective to indicate that you are not really someone worth debating with. If you do not see anything wrong with casually just aborting babies then we are not going to go anywhere in discussing the issue. Very few people hold that stance on abortion even in the pro-choice realm.

I see no evidence of that. I see people being jailed and executed because they are poor. Sometimes these people actually committed crimes, sometimes they didn't. There is no evidence that this killing makes life better for anyone. There is evidence that abortion can improve the life of those that have already been born.

lol...I can see why some people find the level of discussion a little too tin-foil to handle at times. People are not jailed because they are poor Gorgo. They are jailed because they are suspected of a crime, and then a judge and jury decides if it was correct to do so. Do you have a better system?

Also, why do you depend on the government to make a woman's life better? I mean if you are giving her a way to just relieve herself of the consequences of sex, then aren't you really just taking away any responsibility that comes with sex?

[Gorgo]

Your ad hominem and your inability to think from point A to point B without several detours shows me the same about you.

Quote by: dotcoma Gorgo, you have just provided me with enough of your perspective to indicate that you are not really someone worth debating with.

[bishop]

So are you then petty enough to say something like you do not have a birthday cake if the candles are there, but they are not on the cake yet? COME ON lol..you know what it is.

nope.. i'm not that petty, and your analogy is a bit of a stretch. i'm not about to compare some clustered cells to the human being that pops out after 9 months. i keep repeating this: it's something that BECOMES life. i'm not about to take the most minimal example, a cluster of cells, and equate that to being the same as a human being. after all, isn't it the human being's life that is purportedly being protected here?

No, actually if you read my first post I admitted I was pro-choice at one point. Are you denying that there are/were large amounts of underground abortions when it was not legal? Also, why are you ignoring the issue of adoption?

i don't know how many underground abortions there were then, but i do know they occurred across the country. as for adoption, it isn't relavent to whether/not a woman has the right to her own body. but, adoption is a decent alternative for those who aren't comfortable with having an abortion. i would not loosen the requirements to adopt a child, either - babies are not hot commodities like little putties and kittens.

The law protects life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. The mother and the child can both do this. If the mother does not want the child she has other options that do not deny life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for another human being.

pregnancy can impose many problems for the mother - both physically and psychologically. the cluster of cells growing inside her is not a separate entity unto itself, and as a consequence, and the mother is sovereign over her body.

[LogicaLunatic]

I answered the way I did because life starts with the Parents. The question asked by this poll is very poorly phrased.

Is the bundle of cells alive at conception? Absolutely

Is the baby alive at birth? Absolutely

Is the sperm alive before conception? Absolutely

Is the egg alive before conception? Absolutely

I think the real question is....

When does a fertilized egg become a SEPARATE life.

A fertilized egg becomes a separate life when it can be separated from the mother and retain it's viability. Simple as that.

[LogicaLunatic]

dotcoma,

There is going to come a time when a single human cell (excluding egg & sperm), fertilized or no, has the potential to become a human being. When that time comes, will having your appendix removed become a crime? Think of the THOUSANDS of 'potential' humans that would be simply thrown away there! And don't try to disagree because you "know" what they are.

[SeanG]

Fushigi, you said something that is quite the opposite of what the founders clearly pointed to as a truth of what does and what does not come from the state. When you said:

"Rights" are given to us by the state, and philosophical debates about whether we have them or not are pointless. We have the rights the state gives us. End.

This flies in the face of just about every single signer and author of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If you were in the U.S.S.R. or in France during its Revolution you would only get your rights from the state (or soon Venezuela), however, our rights to life come from a higher source than man, government is only there to secure [not to say what] our rights [are]. At least according to those who signed our founding and other documents.

If someone thinks life is sentient at 5-months, or another at 3-months, or whatever, the benefit of doubt should always, and I mean always, be given to life. Once you start to say life doesn’t begin here, or it starts there… you are on a slope that gets slippery fast. There are story’s of babies being born and then euthanized. And others were aborted, but the abortion was botched and the baby lived, later to speak out against abortion. Do those who were supposed to be killed but lived have no say in this debate? Wouldn’t they be the “go-to” person on the subject? Just curious.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo Your ad hominem and your inability to think from point A to point B without several detours shows me the same about you.

Ad homonym? Where? Don't just throw around the term, and play the victim. I have seen you do this in other topics too. You distracted from the main topic.

Quote by: bishop nope.. i'm not that petty, and your analogy is a bit of a stretch. i'm not about to compare some clustered cells to the human being that pops out after 9 months. i keep repeating this: it's something that BECOMES life. i'm not about to take the most minimal example, a cluster of cells, and equate that to being the same as a human being. after all, isn't it the human being's life that is purportedly being protected here?

Yes, and you are preventing the inevitability of that cluster of cells from developing naturally from the sex that caused such a creation. You are denying it life whether or not you consider the state of it to be fully human or not.

i don't know how many underground abortions there were then, but i do know they occurred across the country. as for adoption, it isn't relavent to whether/not a woman has the right to her own body. but, adoption is a decent alternative for those who aren't comfortable with having an abortion. i would not loosen the requirements to adopt a child, either - babies are not hot commodities like little putties and kittens.

I think restrictions on abortions need to be much higher. I think this is the compromise that legislators should seek. I just do not want it to be a casual choice that someone can make because they do not feel like having a child.

pregnancy can impose many problems for the mother - both physically and psychologically. the cluster of cells growing inside her is not a separate entity unto itself, and as a consequence, and the mother is sovereign over her body.

What is your point? If the baby will kill the mother then that is a different issue. This is not a normal occurrence.

When does a fertilized egg become a SEPARATE life. A fertilized egg becomes a separate life when it can be separated from the mother and retain it's viability. Simple as that.

Can a baby retain it's viability outside of the womb without a mother? A separate life still needs to be nurtured similarly to the way a mother's body takes care of it internally.

Quote by: LogicaLunatic dotcoma, There is going to come a time when a single human cell (excluding egg & sperm), fertilized or no, has the potential to become a human being. When that time comes, will having your appendix removed become a crime? Think of the THOUSANDS of 'potential' humans that would be simply thrown away there! And don't try to disagree because you "know" what they are.

No, I will disagree with you. The abortions we see are not clusters of cells that could have been for anything. They are indeed humans in the process of development.

[Gorgo]

I stand corrected. Insulting, stupid behavior does not equal ad hominem. An ad hominem is something else.

There is no main topic. You keep making up new rules as you go without making any sense.

Quote by: dotcoma Ad homonym? Where? Don't just throw around the term, and play the victim. I have seen you do this in other topics too. You distracted from the main topic.

[SeanG]

Bishop,

I have a question for you:

• “Would you like to see an increase in abortions or a decrease in abortions?”

[Gorgo]

I wasn't asked, but I'll answer. I'd like to see a decrease in the need for all major medical procedures, elective and non-elective alike.

[SeanG]

Gorgo,

Are “all major medical procedures, elective and non-elective alike” a right, like abortion?