Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Two Cents Starboy, I don't think the thread was when did life begin. I think it meant after conception, not three million years ago. I know I'm getting on a bit but I don't feel 3 million years old.

Oh. So you think the question is when does human life become a human being? Gee, what a concept. So what must be present for it to be a human being?

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

ou asked. I said Rowe v. Wade is fine with me.

Roe v. Wade did not establish "when life begins." It merely established that privacy rights trumped the rights of the unborn until a certain point in the gestation process.

This is why Roe v. Wade is vulnerable - because the Constitution does not expressly enumerate a federal right to an abortion - basically, a right to privacy that actually trumps another human being's right to life. Because Roe staked it's survival on the issue of viability, it is in constant flux, and as such, in constant danger of being rolled all the way back to the point of conception, if ever it becomes possible to transfer a fertilized egg to a test tube and incubate the child there.

Which begs the question - if such a medical breakthrough were possible, and newly fertilized eggs could be nursed to full term in an artificial uterus independent of the original mother, would it still be murder, Starboy? You have staked your entire belief system on Roe v. Wade and its concept of viability outside the mother's womb - which is literally a point in the gestation process that has continued to roll backward over time. Would you agree that "life begins" at conception if a conception could occur outside the host mother?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Roe v. Wade did not establish "when life begins." It merely established that privacy rights trumped the rights of the unborn until a certain point in the gestation process. This is why Roe v. Wade is vulnerable - because the Constitution does not expressly enumerate a federal right to an abortion - basically, a right to privacy that actually trumps another human being's right to life. Because Roe staked it's survival on the issue of viability, it is in constant flux, and as such, in constant danger of being rolled all the way back to the point of conception, if ever it becomes possible to transfer a fertilized egg to a test tube and incubate the child there. Which begs the question - if such a medical breakthrough were possible, and newly fertilized eggs could be nursed to full term in an artificial uterus independent of the original mother, would it still be murder, Starboy? You have staked your entire belief system on Roe v. Wade and its concept of viability outside the mother's womb - which is literally a point in the gestation process that has continued to roll backward over time. Would you agree that "life begins" at conception if a conception could occur outside the host mother?

I understand that Rowe v. Wade was based on older knowledge but the decision still stands until there is a reason to readdress the ruling. But I don't see how advances in science will negate the need for abortion. As you point out, in the future we will learn how to reproduced humans in a wider number of ways and perhaps completely artificially from non-living materials AKA complete cell generation from scratch. Such abilities will mean that the cells in your feces that you flush down the toilet when you take a dump will now be potential human life. And there could also be techniques that would allow the genetic material from a sperm to be made into a complete set of DNA that could also be turned into a potential human life. When teenage boys jack off in the john as they gawk at girly magazines what they deposit on the floor and in the toilet will be potential human life. It will have the effect of reducing the "sacredness" of potential human life because it will be so dang easy to make it on demand. And the human race will hopefully look at currently living human life and how well we take care of those humans and have more concern for them then in protecting very easily created potential human life.

Yup it will be very easy to make human life. If we do not learn to balance the importance of potential human life against living human life we could be looking at 12 billion people in the next thirty years and 24 billion in the thirty after that. At that point we will not only be using abortion to control the population but probably far more drastic measures.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

Starboy as condescending and smart as you try to be I think you failed again. The question has been answered many times. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Are you feigning ignorance?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Someone here said that the population will end up becoming negative? I'm too lazy to find the post, but Starboy reminded me that that's not true at all. Thought I'd make that clear.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Two Cents Starboy as condescending and smart as you try to be I think you failed again. The question has been answered many times. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Are you feigning ignorance?

I certainly do not know how it will all turn out but I read the scientific literature and try to keep up with the game. Most people alive today are in for a big shock. There will be as great a sea change in peoples thinking about life as there was about the earth and the universe several hundred years ago.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Someone here said that the population will end up becoming negative? I'm too lazy to find the post, but Starboy reminded me that that's not true at all. Thought I'd make that clear.

The human population will eventually be zero. There may be other people spread to other planets but there will come a time when the earth will no longer be habitable. And then of course we are a species just like any other and there is not reason to think that we cannot become extinct.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

Starboy, at last you and I agree. Humans are just a species and in my eyes they were created the same way as all species and none are greater than the whole. The one big difference is that other animals have no control over their environment (including over population) and we do. I think you would probably agree that population can and should be controlled in other ways than abortion if it could be done. I already know that you are against late term abortion, in my eyes that is murder. The method is barbaric and the same thing I saw done to a frog (pithing) in one of my biology classes. The method is inhumane and the baby is viable. I also stated that life shouldn't be inflicted on those who cannot truly have a life. I worked in a lab years ago and everyone there agreed that they would prefer euthanasia to a terrible end. We do this for our animals and it is called humane. If it is done for people it is called murder, not a release. There are so many questions in life that I don't think they can all be answered. I know some biology but the more advanced we become with science the more the answers seem to become philosophical. Having grown up in a simpler time I've seen huge strides in medicine and am always amazed by what can be done to improve and prolong life.

[Starboy]

That all sounds great but at the end of the day if you think that we already have more life on the planet than we need then I would think that you would be more concerned with current human life rather than potential human life. And if we do not do something about it soon and there is not some sort of natural catastrophe that decimates our population not only will we have abortion when there is only a single cell but even babies that have managed to be born may be killed. Our animal instincts to procreate combined with our ability to control our environment are not healthy for our species. No species can continue to expand into its environment indefinitely. Concerns over potential life are laughable when compared to this current problem. There is no one here but us to cull the herd. Abortion is just one of many ways to do it. But if we do not do it ourselves I can guarantee that it will happen one way or the other.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

I understand what you are saying. I think there are ways to restrict family size with economic control. People are always concerned with the dollar. This is something else that I've thought about for a along time but another thought is if it is controlled by "over x amount of children" you don't get tax breaks, child care credits, etc. that some children may be abandoned or malnourished. I also don't think that very early abortion in itself is wrong when there is justification but I'm not the one to say what the justification is. I do know that abortion kills a living being and this should be one of the considerations when thinking of having an abortion.

[Starboy]

It will not be solved with a single solution. It will take a very big bag of tricks. To exclude abortion simply because you hold potential life to be more important that current life is very short sighted. Besides as the law stands you are not forced to get an abortion however we should be happy that people are limiting their numbers even it they use abortion. In our society right now there are only a few effective techniques to limit reproduction and abortion is one of them. One of the alternatives is forced sterilization. My bet is that you would find that even more distasteful than voluntary abortion.

Starboy

[Two Cents]

On the contrary, I think forced sterilization for some people would be good. There are all kinds of child abusers and none of them should ever have a child. Someone convicted of murder or child abuse or other heinous crimes should never be allowed to have a child. There is someone I know that has 12 children and although they are cared for I don't think having a herd of children is the best way to raise a child. There can be no special time for any of them. I do worry about the resources that will be left to my granddaughter. I try to limit my own impact on the planet and think that education may be one of the keys to limit population and earth impact. You are right in saying that all the resources have to be kept if we are to survive as a race. None of this changes my postion about abortion killing a living being. I just don't have all the answers.

[Starboy]

Great! So get a law passed to allow for forced serialization and while you are doing that try to reconcile that with your desire to see abortion eliminated. At the end of the day both are methods for preventing potential human beings from coming into the world.

Starboy

[ibm]

Quote by: Two Cents On the contrary, I think forced sterilization for some people would be good. There are all kinds of child abusers and none of them should ever have a child. Someone convicted of murder or child abuse or other heinous crimes should never be allowed to have a child. There is someone I know that has 12 children and although they are cared for I don't think having a herd of children is the best way to raise a child. There can be no special time for any of them.

huh? so a murderer should’ve never been given birth? it’s all hinder sight. a person is entitled to have children – as many as s/he wants. child-abuse is definitely wrong, and should be punished. but this doesn’t or shouldn’t preclude a person from having children. whether you or i like it or not, there is nothing wrong to have 12 children (and take care of them).

Quote by: Two Cents I do worry about the resources that will be left to my granddaughter. I try to limit my own impact on the planet and think that education may be one of the keys to limit population and earth impact. You are right in saying that all the resources have to be kept if we are to survive as a race. None of this changes my postion about abortion killing a living being. I just don't have all the answers.

i don’t have all the answers, either. and no one ever does imo.

as humans grow in increasing numbers, natural resources become more scarce globally. this is a legit concern of the modern days, and has caused a lot of conflicts worldwide. but for an individual like you and me, there is little we can do. i don’t have grandchildren yet. i do have a daughter. i will try to raise and support her the best i can until she can stand for herself at certain point of her life in the future. after that, i believe as a parent i should have fulfilled, largely, my responsibilities as a parent both to her and the society. but i am not really worried about how much money i will be able to leave to her. maybe a little, maybe a lot. I hope it’s a lot, but that’s not the point.

as for abortion, no one thinks killing an unborn child (or “living being”) is a good thing. but imo it’s highly circumstantial. i’m not in favor of abortion, but i’m not against it either. i don’t think a mother can abort her child irresponsibly, but there should just be room, both legally and socially, for abortion when the circumstance calls for it. for example, hypothetically when abortion is the only necessary means to preserve the mother’s life, i’d be definitely for it. yes, it’s killing, but when there is only one that can survive, i’d choose the adult, no matter what kind of a person s/he may be.

i understand abortion is a somewhat complicated matter. but imho there should be room (may not be too big) for it. in other words, passing a law to absolutely ban it would be absolutely wrong.

[Two Cents]

Unfortunatly I cannot get a law passed. There is the liberal ACLU that would say that even in the face of overpopulation, partial birth abortion and child abuse that having children is a basic inaliable right. Of course it just comes down to biology. I look at it as a gift to have a child and I think you have to do everything you can for a life you bring into the world who doesn't ask to be here (what I call inflicting life). That means working to feed, clothe and shelter them not expecting other people to give you the means to do it. If you choose to have a child then you must be responsible for the life you bring into the world.

There was a woman who was offering drug addicted women money for voluntary sterilization. The ACLU stepped in and took her to court and made her stop doing this. They have forced society to be responsible for the poor drug addicted children they continue to bear. These are some of the one's who should be forced to be sterilized or jailed for delivering drugs to a minor.

[Two Cents]

ibm, I agree with what you say. I just can't see having so many children even though they are taken care of. The earth can stand just so much insult. We are a throw away society and it goes into landfills. This is my concern for the living and future generations. I think moderation is a good thing. I know I can certaintly do with less in my life and I am changing that now. I feel very privileged to live where we do and have free choice. I think people can be educated to make better choices. The mother of the person who has the 12 children says she can't even remember all their names!!!! She also got to buy shoes for all of them because the parents couldn't afford it. I think it would be very hard to treat all those children as individuals and not just a group. They seem to lose their identity in a crowd.

You are a responsible parent who is teaching their child to be a responsible individual. That is comendable and money is not the only thing we give our children. A sense of self and responsiblitity for ones self is very important.

[ibm]

Quote by: Two Cents … I look at it as a gift to have a child and I think you have to do everything you can for a life you bring into the world who doesn't ask to be here (what I call inflicting life). That means working to feed, clothe and shelter them not expecting other people to give you the means to do it. If you choose to have a child then you must be responsible for the life you bring into the world.

of course. i agree 100%. but this is not directly related to abortion, is it?

Quote by: Two Cents There was a woman who was offering drug addicted women money for voluntary sterilization. The ACLU stepped in and took her to court and made her stop doing this. They have forced society to be responsible for the poor drug addicted children they continue to bear. These are some of the one's who should be forced to be sterilized or jailed for delivering drugs to a minor.

do you have a link to the story? i’d like to learn more about it.

based on the info in your post, i think, or want to believe, that the woman providing the money did it out of her goodwill. and i don’t know if drug addiction will result in an imperfect child or how likely it will. if the 2 can reach an agreement at their free will, i have nothing to say about it – though i think the money may be better spent to get rid of the addiction if it’s serious. but if you talk about some should be forced to be sterilized, where are their rights? how do you compare that to what happens in some other countries where they cut off the hand(s) of a thief?

the thinking of rights should only exist or be granted to “good” people is very very dangerous and could lead to many misdeeds.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Two Cents I look at it as a gift to have a child and I think you have to do everything you can for a life you bring into the world who doesn't ask to be here (what I call inflicting life). That means working to feed, clothe and shelter them not expecting other people to give you the means to do it. If you choose to have a child then you must be responsible for the life you bring into the world.

If only everyone thought that way twocents. I have the same belief. Things happen to people that don't make them put their priorities straight, like child care. It's too bad.

[Two Cents]

ibm, what I was saying is that people who abuse or murder children should not have the privilege of raising a child. What kind of person could do that to a child and live with themselves. Sterilization goes hand in hand with the abortion question. If more people were sterilized there would be fewer people and less abortion. Abortion in itself should not be made illegal. I just think people should know all the facts before getting one and if your family consists of 3 children and you don't want anymore then you should be sterilized. It doesn't change your life just keeps you from having to make other decisions

No one should have more children than they can comfortably raise by themselves. I worked with a girl who had one child, was getting state help with that child and then became pregnant again and insisted she had the "right" to have as many children as she wanted even though my taxes went to pay for them. I worked with another girl who had a child, knew she could support only one and had no more. I liked the second person so much more because she had a sense of responsibility to that child.

The story of the woman giving money for sterilization was on CBS news about 3 years ago. I don't know if it's archived or you can find it in Google. I thought she had a great idea and it was voluntary. She only paid them about $100 each and the ACLU said they would only spend it on drugs and be deprived of the privilege of having children I believe children, old people and sick people need protection from society and the others can fend for themselves. .

[ibm]

Quote by: Two Cents … and if your family consists of 3 children and you don't want anymore then you should be sterilized. …

for what? just in case you change your mind next week? or in a case of divorce-and-remarriage – “no, dear, you’ve had the ice cream before. no more for you”?

i’m not arguing. it’s just common sense to me.

Quote by: Two Cents No one should have more children than they can comfortably raise by themselves. I worked with a girl who had one child, was getting state help with that child and then became pregnant again and insisted she had the "right" to have as many children as she wanted even though my taxes went to pay for them. I worked with another girl who had a child, knew she could support only one and had no more. I liked the second person so much more because she had a sense of responsibility to that child ….

if our system is so designed that the 1st woman can get public money, then what’s wrong with her (as an individual) to utilize the benefit? whether our system should be such – is another story. of course, you can let go of it just like the other woman. which one is “good” or better? is it really that obvious?