South Dakota set to Ban Abortion
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
jomi822
Banned
BigVrunga said:
This comment is very insightful and if seriuosly considered by opposition they would find it correlates exactly with their views on an unborn fetus.
If we had the technology to develope a few cells from a person's body into a fully functional human being would it be ok to damage those cells in any way? They can, after all, become human in the right conditions, the same as a fetus.
A fully operational human being cannot be compared to a developing mass of cells in my opinon. Once again, whatever your opinion may be, do you still believe it is your choice to force that opinion upon a pregnant woman?
that mass of developing cells is completely dependant upon that woman's body, essentially making it a part of her. Are you going to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body? For people that would answer yes, you disgust me. you may not approve but it IS NOT YOUR CHOICE.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Blah...I'm so sick of people trying to compare abortion to murder, or the death penalty.brogers said:
Its not comparable to murder while the fetus is in development because it hasn't had the opportunity to develope into a human being. hell, the fetus still has gill slits! Do you have gill slits? They're not human for the first few months of development. By your definition it would be manslaugter to have a wet dream...all of those poor sperm (with 'human dna') are just going to *gulp* die!?
Then, you've got the liberals on the other side comparing who cry out against the death penalty, yet are for late term abortion. How screwed up is that? They'll allow you to kill a late term fetus who has no means of self defense, commited no crime, and had no say in the matter (a fetus that could live as a human..hell, they can live after like 5 months of age) YET they think its utterly barbaric to give a murderer who consciously took lives/raped/etc the death penalty...what a bunch of idiots.
Then by that truth, life starts in your testicles.
Depends on the stage of development it is in. However, much of the time it is just a mass of cells.
No its not. But, its not worth arguing with you over. You obviously are learning your science from the King James Version
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Great post--100% valid, too.BigVrunga said:
Hell, soon enough if you scrape a knee you'll be killing millions of potential humans. lol.
foo.c
Board Supporter
My wife is pregnant with fraternal twins right now. She's almost in the third tri-mester.
I just wanted to say that having gone with her and watched the ultrasound monitors, that I am not of the opinion that a fetus is just a "collection of cells".
Maybe I'm biased because they are my children, but I felt very attached to them. I have seen them move their arms, kick, touch their faces, etc.
To some extent we even think we can see some of their personalities. One baby is always moving and fidgeting. While the other seems to be more relaxed.
The though of killing a fetus that can do those things strikes me as abhorrent. (And I'm not a religous person at all.)
Keep in mind all of this was in the second trimester where abortion is allowed.
I just wanted to say that having gone with her and watched the ultrasound monitors, that I am not of the opinion that a fetus is just a "collection of cells".
Maybe I'm biased because they are my children, but I felt very attached to them. I have seen them move their arms, kick, touch their faces, etc.
To some extent we even think we can see some of their personalities. One baby is always moving and fidgeting. While the other seems to be more relaxed.
The though of killing a fetus that can do those things strikes me as abhorrent. (And I'm not a religous person at all.)
Keep in mind all of this was in the second trimester where abortion is allowed.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Congrats!foo.c said:
Third trimester is key. At this point, if a baby 'had to come out' he could live as a human. If it were up to me, I would ban later term abortions (with exceptions) because at a certain piont, they are no longer a 'blob of cellular mass', even while they're still in the womb.
However, during the first few months they are tiny masses of cells with no discernable human traits. This is what it would look like during early stages of development under heavy magnification. Oh wait....he has his mothers eyes....ahhhh
Invalid Link Removed
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
:sad: What if gulp is part of another word? For example, can I use BigGulp and sperm in the same sentence?jarhead said:Kwycke-please never use the words "gulp" and "sperm" in the same sentence again.
jarhead
Well-known member
foo.c said:
This is where choice is important. This is a wonderful experience for you and I can understand your feelings. You have grown attached to what WILL become your children. This is much different however than a women that was raped with the same thing inside her. As much as it's wonderful for you, it's horrible for her. This ban makes no concession for that type of circumstance.
CDB
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
I don't agree with the legislation, but if a person believes the fetus is alive and its life is worth protecting, allowing a woman the choice to abort a fetus that is the result of rape and.or incest is essentially killing/punishing the unborn child for actions that were not its own and in fact completely oustide its control. Not arguing for that position, just pointing out that it's an off point objection. In the context of the right to life view it is perfectly consistent. How the fetus got there is not the point, the point to them is that it is alive, has a right to that life, has done nothing wrong and is worth protecting. To them it would be no different than trying to justify a woman's right to kill a child of any age because of the actions of the father.
foo.c
Board Supporter
kwyckemynd00 said:
Thanks.
kwyckemynd00 said:
I have pictures of my kids as blastocysts. We tried for years to have children "naturally" but no success. We did in vitro with two blastocysts and both took.
I have no point with this. I just wanted to say I have seen them in this stage.
CDB
Registered User
I love these boards and these debates. On this one I don't want to challenge anyone, but want to post a couple of points/questions to spark some more debate:
If a woman is capable of deciding whether or not to have an abortion, and she didn't want to get pregnant, why was she incapable of deciding to not have sex to avoid the risk altogether, and why was she incapable of using birth control to prevent conception? It seems the prevelant view of the prochoice crowd that the decision to have an abortion is somehow an unavoidable one when it isn't. Seems in fact up until that point there were a shitload of chances to avoid the decision altogether. People who want to have children have trouble getting pregnant a lot of times. Makes you wonder how careful the woman and man were regarding preventative measures.
For the pro life crowd, while the fetus may be considered human the mother certainly is considered human. At what point can and should a mother or parent in general have the legal ability to end their responsibility for that child? Five, 10, 18 years of age? When someone is willing to take care of it for them, before or after then? Being forced to carry a baby to term, whether you like it or not, is taking their choice away. A horrible choice yes, but we do not stop landlords from evicting tenants even if that tenant would be likely to die for lack of housing. Not a perfect analogy, but still relevant. There are property rights, specifically to your own body, that trump the ability of people to impose on, abridge or violate those rights even if their life depends on it.
Also if the lives of these children are so precious why are so few people lining up to adopt them when the women who normally would get an abortion don't for whatever reason? There are in fact lots of people lining up to adopt kids, but they're lining up to adopt the nice, clean, healthy white cherubs and not the poor little white trash and nigger crack babies. I wouldn't set the lives of the latter children as worth less than the former, however most couples seem to do so implicitly through their choice of which they will wait for years to adopt when there are unadopted children that no one wants.
This is a complex issue. Even if the fetus is granted legal status as a full person it doesn't mean the mother has to carry it to term. Even if the fetus is denied that status until the time of birth it doesn't answer the ethical and moral questions surrounding the massive amounts of abortions occuring in our society, especially when pregnancy is so easily avoided for anyone with half a brain cell.
If a woman is capable of deciding whether or not to have an abortion, and she didn't want to get pregnant, why was she incapable of deciding to not have sex to avoid the risk altogether, and why was she incapable of using birth control to prevent conception? It seems the prevelant view of the prochoice crowd that the decision to have an abortion is somehow an unavoidable one when it isn't. Seems in fact up until that point there were a shitload of chances to avoid the decision altogether. People who want to have children have trouble getting pregnant a lot of times. Makes you wonder how careful the woman and man were regarding preventative measures.
For the pro life crowd, while the fetus may be considered human the mother certainly is considered human. At what point can and should a mother or parent in general have the legal ability to end their responsibility for that child? Five, 10, 18 years of age? When someone is willing to take care of it for them, before or after then? Being forced to carry a baby to term, whether you like it or not, is taking their choice away. A horrible choice yes, but we do not stop landlords from evicting tenants even if that tenant would be likely to die for lack of housing. Not a perfect analogy, but still relevant. There are property rights, specifically to your own body, that trump the ability of people to impose on, abridge or violate those rights even if their life depends on it.
Also if the lives of these children are so precious why are so few people lining up to adopt them when the women who normally would get an abortion don't for whatever reason? There are in fact lots of people lining up to adopt kids, but they're lining up to adopt the nice, clean, healthy white cherubs and not the poor little white trash and nigger crack babies. I wouldn't set the lives of the latter children as worth less than the former, however most couples seem to do so implicitly through their choice of which they will wait for years to adopt when there are unadopted children that no one wants.
This is a complex issue. Even if the fetus is granted legal status as a full person it doesn't mean the mother has to carry it to term. Even if the fetus is denied that status until the time of birth it doesn't answer the ethical and moral questions surrounding the massive amounts of abortions occuring in our society, especially when pregnancy is so easily avoided for anyone with half a brain cell.
CDB
Registered User
[B said:
Mrs. Gimpy! said:
Not a good posting, because at various points in history the government has 'redefined' and 'clarified' just who is and is not human, and just who does and does not deserve legal protection as a human. This protection has been repeatedly denied to those who are quite obviously more than a lump of cells. It's mostly a legal distinction. Whether or not that blod of cells can morally or ethically considered a human is not so easy.
As to why prolifers have such a hard time accepting legal abortions, to them that would be equivalent of asking why some people had such a hard time accepting the holocaust. As far as they are concerned the fetus is a human being at conception. While I'm generally prochoice in my views, it's more often than not the prochoicers who are not seeming to notice that people can have differring opinions because they can't understand why anyone who disagrees with them would 'impose' their view on everyone else, even if the view being imposed is one that is, in the view of the imposer, saying something as universally agreed upon and simple as Do not kill innocent people.
People who are prolife believe abortion is murder. Many people disagree with that, but given the nature of the prolife view I think it is more than understandable why they are so adamant about imposing their views on everyone else. That they may be right makes it more disturbing, and not acknowledging that their views are most certainly not always rooted in religion is disingenuous. There are prolife atheists. This is not a religious issue, it is a human one.
CDB
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
So there would be no ethical question in your mind if someone deliberately takes those cells, starts to grow them into a full human being is such a way that if left alone it will happen, and then decides to stop the process? The same exact pro and con arguments apply. No, you scraped skin cells do not deserve legal protection as human. It's just not the same because the chance for life without intent on the part of somebody to bring it into existence is not there, nor is the unstoppable process there. In your analogy having some tissue removed would be the equivalent of, if anything, rubbing one out on your own and throwing the cleanup tissues away, not the equivalent of an abortion.
As to why the person from the HS school debating team said you were losing, it's because you are BV. You haven't attacked the homeland yet so to speak, or shown the inconsistencies in the prolife argument.
CDB
Registered User
While I agree on the death penalty, it is defined as murder in some circumstances. And, if one or both parents wanted the baby and someone through a criminal act causes the pregnancy to terminate, does it not justify a murder charge? Suppose the termination of the pregnancy under some freak circumstance was the only result of the reckless or deliberate act of another human being. Do the parents have no legal recourse? If not murder, what is it? Robbery, destruction of property? Clearly some wrong has been done to the parents and possibly the fetus. But if not murder, unless the fetus is given some legal definition as property, there is no recourse for the parents. And if it is murder under those circumstances, why would it not be murder when the mother terminates the pregnancy?kwyckemynd00 said:
If left alone though, those sperm will not develop into a human being. They have to deliberately be delivered to the egg, and then, bio problems causing misscarriage aside, the fetus will develop nonstop despite the intentions or wishes of the parents. The legal point of intent is also left out of this analogy. Jerking off in bed obviously has no intent or even risk of producing a pregnancy, nor does the blood or tissue lost during surgery, sex does, as does cloning. It is a known consequence. The 'death' of the fetus is also a known consequence of abortion.
King James Science aside here, there's also ethics, morality and legality involved, questions not answered by looking through a microscope. The cloning/masturbation/wet dream analogies are extremely poor. In the cloning analogy the abortionist/abortion decider would be the doctor/scientist that stopped a previously initiated cloning process of the type that would complete itself if he left it alone. It wouldn't have anything to do with the person who donated the tissue unless they had an active role in the decision of starting/finishing the process. The same exact ethical, moral and legal questions surround the cloning debate. Masturbation by nature avoids the point of conception, intention, known and avoidable risk and the unstoppability of the process once it takes hold. Pregnancy is never a consequence of mastubation or wet dreams, unless you've got some super sperm that, after getting shot onto the blankets bloodhound their way to the nearest pussy and start swimming. Nor does pointing out that a zygote doesn't look human or that fetuses as they develop have nonhuman characteristics answer the question. Everyone posting on these boards was once such a lump of cells, or such a mutant with gills. I'm sure, even though you may not have been aware of it then, most of you were happy your mothers did not remove a certain piece of 'tissue' from her body.
Last edited:
brogers
Member
CDB said:
The age of independence is 18 in the US, no? As for if we should change that, I don't know.. I suppose I'd have to think about it, but 18 seems logical as that is when you will have finished basic schooling.
If someone is willing to take care of them? I'm not sure what you mean here, are you talking about someone other than the mother taking the care of it for her? That sounds like adoption, which is already practiced. Please clarify here.
As I had said before, yes there are rights to your own body. You have the right to have sex with whomever you want or not and you have the right to use birth control or not to. Conception of a child is the result of a choice and the exercising of your own personal freedoms. It stops becoming just about the mother when there is an unborn child's life at stake.
I don't understand why we condone such irresponsible and selfish behavior. I can't think of anything more selfish than ending your child's life because you didn't want to be accountable for what you did. As you yourself stated, pregnancy is ridiculously easily prevented.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Defined is the problematic word here....'definitions' are entirely problematic. That's why we're debating this, is it not?CDB said:
I disagree that its murder. I call it suicide. You know that if you kill someone, you will die, so if you kill someone, you killed yourself.Another technicality in the law. The parents made the decision to give that baby life, so it was legally alive.
However, IMO, it would be wrong to charge a man for the murder of an unborn child who which was on its way to the abortion clinic anyway, because its parent made the decision it would not be given birth to.
I addressed this issue in my previous statements in this post.
A parent decides they want to give birth to the child, therefore, there is a legal recognition of life there. If the parent decided they would not give birth, the human-to-be does not exist. If nobody knew the mother was pregnant, the child will never exist, and you can't murder a non-existant person.
IMO it is murder once the child reaches a certain developmental stage. But, if terminated responsibly while the embryo is still in development and we don't have a fetus who is dreaming, feeling, etc, that was just a decision that is not much different than wearing a condom. You wear a condom because you don't want to be pregnant. When the condom doesn't work, that doesn't change your desire to have a child, does it? No, technology failed in the preventative stage, now we need to terminate the pregnancy quickly and responsibly.
you're assuming people are screwing for reproductive purposes. if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she wouldn't ever deliberately deliver anything.
Exactly the reason we developed methods of 'birth control'. People are taking appropriate action against getting pregnant. Were not talking about purposely getting pregant and then calling it off, these are accidental / unintended / unwilling pregnancies.
No...ethics are just overstepping their bounds here. Morphologically, the embryo is not human. The microscope CAN tell you that.
CDB
Registered User
brogers said:
Yes, but then is that a truly good standard? Children placed in foster care for whatever reason are often still incapable of caring for themselves at 18. Only point I was trying to make is that it's not always so easy or clear as to where and when a parent's, or prospective parent's responsibilities begin and end. Suppose it was possible to incubate a fetus outside the womb of the mother. The fetus would still not be in this world were it not for the actions of her and the man she had sex with, so despite the fact that the fetus has been removed from the woman's body it could still have a legal and moral claim to some kind of support. Maybe that's more addressed to the prochoice crowd, but the issue obviously isn't simple.
An analogy I like to use is a house in the middle of a blizzard. Suppose you own it. Suppose you invite (voluntary sex) someone (a fetus) in, suppose they break in (rape or incest). Doesn't really matter. Suppose they are mentally retarded and cannot care for themselves. Evicting them into the blizzard (hazardous environment, just as the world is to a developing fetus), even if you initially invited them in, should still legally remain your right. The ethics and morality of forcing them out are questionable I'd admit, but it should still be your right and choice to tell them to leave despite the end result for them. It's a matter of property rights sovereignty over your own home (body). Suppose they were threatening you (health of the mother) or even just making your life massively inconvenient (just don't want it there)? It makes the reservation of the right to evict (abort) even more critical and obvious even if they are only there because you invited them in.
Yes it does, but that's an obvious blanket statement and doesn't answer the question of whether or not she has the right to abort the fetus.
I would agree, and I'm made sick by the "it's just tissue" crowd and their easy dismissal of every ethical and moral question on the issue. However, the issue is not simple. Not every woman knows if a pregnancy will be a threat to her life for example, as it can be. Intentionally or not, once the fetus becomes a threat to her life by saying she must carry it to term you'd be forcing her to risk her life for another. While I'd like to believe she and everyone for that matter would risk their life to help save and continue the life of an innocent child, no one has the right to force anyone to do so.
And yes, pregnancy is easily avoided. That doesn't change the fact that the fetus is an imposition on someone, the mother, who mainains her sovereignty over her own body regardless of her past decisions. What you are saying is essentially she cannot change her mind for any reason whatsoever once the conception takes place, which denies she has any appreciable right to governmen her own body. The same argument could be used legally to stop landlords from evicting people if those people are incapable of taking care of themselves. Not exactly the same, but legally it works. The very fact that she had a right to let the fetus in implies she may have a right to tell it to get out, if not under all circumstances.
jarhead
Well-known member
Most of what I said was directed at a specific post, so much of this is taken out of context or aimed at rhetorical questions. I will say that even though there are atheists that are prolife, the reality is that this IS largely a religious issue. Lets be realistic- atheists aren't burning down abortion clinics, sending death threats etc.etc-religious zealots are. It's the religious aspect of the prolife side that makes it such a heated argument. People aren't arguing and getting violent because it's wrong in the eyes of science. They're arguing that they feel that it's wrong in the eyes of God. And you yourself said that the question of when life starts is not easy to answer. Prolife /prochoice-neither have that DEFINITIVELY answered. So how is the prolife argument that it is murder even valid?CDB said:
CDB
Registered User
kwyckemynd00 said:
What stage, how is that determined objectively, and why does this get trumped when the parents want the baby? Say the stage is arbitrarily set to that level of development achieved at 6 months. Your reasoning seems to lead to these conclusions:
I) If they didn't know about the pregnancy, it isn't murder. What if they only knew after the fact but have a documented desire for a child on record somehow? A legal defense would be they wanted a child, not this specific child, and their lack of awareness of it deprives it of protection. Suppose a doctor prescribes a medicine that causes a miscarraige. Even though no one knew of the child, if post involuntary termination of the pregnancy means the fetus was human, the doctor could easily be charged with manslaughter, the argument being even if miscarriage was a slight risk he should have checked for pregnancy first. What if the medication needed to be administered right away though?
The problem I see is the protection of the fetus, if any, has to be based on its inherent characteristics, not someone else's wishes. Laws that prohibit murder should not be dependent in any circumstances on whether or not someone wants the murderered person around. The legal precedents would be scary and possibly hard to confine to just fetuses. The law tends to expand, not contract its reach.
II) Miscarraiges due to poor behavior on he part of the mother after six months would be considered in the manslaughter/murder category, however before six months she could offer an affirmative defense that she didn't want it anyway. Or she wouldn't have to offer it perhaps.
III) I asked for what the standard for determining when the fetus is a person regardless of the wishes of the mother because of this point: most of the reasons used to justify a woman being able to abort a fetus can be used to justify the termination of any child up to whatever the age of emancipation is, because all children impose on their parents, all parents have made the choice to have them there, and absent a legal distinction more objective than 'when their gills disappear,' there's really no reason why the age of legal termination has to be in the prebirth period.
Such legal standards leave the door open for severe legal abuses. The levels of fraud and possible crimes and legal precedents when someone is human under these circumstances and not human under those, and their status is dependent in wholeor part on the wishes of someone else, someone who may not have the interests of the person to be terminated in mind, are scary.
IV) What if one parent wants the child and the other doesn't? If the wishes of the parents are the issue, the father should have a say. If he is willing to care completely for the child and wants it with all his heart, but the woman doesn't, is it murder when gets the abortion, or do her rights over her own body trump the father's desire for the child's life, and if so why? Does her desire to avoid a mere nine months discomfort completely trump the legal protection for the fetus' life that the father's desire to see it live would otherwise give it? Is the life of the fetus to be completely determined by the convenience of the mother up until the arbitrary point where it turns into a child? Suppose the husband delays her ability to abort somehow to beyond that point, does he then win by default, would she be a murderer if she still got an abortion? He could kidnap her and take her to a state or another jurisdiction where abortion was totally illegal, stay there until the six month limit passed and she had the kid and keep it. In that jurisdiction he would be a hero and could presumably stay without fear of extradition. In his previous home he would be, well no one knows. He will be a kidnapper for sure. However for the first six months of the pregnancy he would be restricting her rights and after he'd be protecting the fetus' rights.
I assume you know the damage that can be done to kids by spiteful parents during a divorce. The standard you propose would bring the pre birth child's death technically into that arena. A spiteful woman could say she doesn't want the child and destroy it, and may or may not be charged with murder. A father might say he doesn't want it and cause it's death and possibly avoid murder charges. The legal complexity is bad enough when it is and is not a person at certain times, and you want to make the situation worse by making its legal status further dependent on whether or not someone wants it. I obviously cannot say you are right or wrong, I don't think anyone can on this issue. I do however think this is needlessly complex, and at whatever point, from conception to birth, that a fetus' life is legally defined as starting, it should be absolute and not dependent of what the parents want. It either is or is not a person who deserves legal protection.
I like that you're dealing with intent, few if any do. But wearing a condom is not the same as an early term abortion. Sperm do not develop on their own, nor do eggs. Preconception birth control is not the same as post conception birth control. Post conception you are deliberately stopping a process that will continue to fruition if left alone and produce a living human being, and doing so after two (or more :woohoo
people have deliberately engaged in an act where a child is one of the well known and easily avoidable consequences. Sperm alone do not do this, eggs alone do not do this. This is a critical difference. There is not potential for human life in a wet dream or a tied off rubber, nor is their intent. Once the sperm and egg join and conception takes place there is the massive potential for a human life to develop if the process is not deliberately stopped.Intent of the sex isn't the issue really, but the known consequences of unprotected sex: pregnancy. The prolife crowd is not off base when they say if you don't want the kid and are absent any protection, the woman should keep her legs crossed and the guy his dick in his pants. They see it as punishing the child as the unwanted consequence of what the parents in hindsight see as a stupid decision. And apparently after the fetus reaches a certain point of development, so do you. So you actually share their view, just not their determination of when it takes legal hold. So that's what the question comes down to: when is the fetus a child? Legally this can be defined anytime as in some countries and throughout history parents have retained post birth abortion rights. Ethically and morally it can also be defined anytime depending on what factors you are looking at. Scientifically it can't be defined, because what is life vs what is human life, how it is defined, detected and tested for, etc., are not questions that are currently answerable in an objective manner.
Since any standard would be arbitrary, it seems kind of off putting to me at least the ease with which many prochoice people brush the prolife argument aside. From a practical viewpoint one could argue that the protection of life is worth playing it safe and allowing it to be defined broadly, so there are utilitarian arguments for the prolife crowd and their view. Which kind of makes the "King James" science comments and assumed religious backing of the prolife argument off base and off point.
Any pregnancy can be defined as accidental and unintended regardless of the precautions that were or were not used. So long as the mother and father don't want it, it's accidental and unintended. Should parents have to prove reasonable steps were taken to avoid pregnancy before being allowed to have an abortion? If so how do they prove that, and if not how do you limit abortions to those that are truly accidental and unintended and not those that are the result of irresponsibility?
Ethics are involved. You can't dismiss the possibility and potential for life there that will occur. The conception has happened the rest is set in stone, bio problems aside, and the general gladness of most people who were once such blobs that they weren't removed is also not deniable. It seems you want to say ethics are not involved because the questions are inconvenient to the prochoice stance.
The microscope can only tell you what something looks like, not whether or not it is human legally, morally, ethically or even scientifically. What is the scientific definition of human life and how is it applied to the development of the fetus? If it could tell you these things there would not only be no argument on this issue, every philosopher would also be out of a job. If you know the objective and provable standard at which a fetus stops being tissue and becomes a human being, please post it.
Last edited:
CDB
Registered User
True, but isn't that like blaming every Muslim for 9/11? Religious prejudice is not acceptable towards our largely Christian prolife crowd, and nor should it be for the very reason that this detracts from the prochoice side's credibility. Derrision of prolifers as religious zealots leads to straw man arguments against their valid points and, as we've seen here, some poor analogies meant to prove points that are completely off base and irrelevant to the prolife argument.jarhead said:
I've seen prochoicers who are just as if not more zealous as prolifers. Even though I'm not prolife myself I am very sympathetic to their side and arguments, and get very, very, very heated when someone hits me with the "it's just tissue" argument. I have no overriding or pressing religious beliefs, if any, just a passionate belief that all human life is precious and that all humans have inalienable rights which deserve to be respected and protected. Very often prolifers are portayed as religious lunatics because it's easier to do that than deal with some of the valid points and questions they raise. And even if they are zealots, much of our inalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which we consider as an inarguable given, were considered inherent in nature and by some zealots as granted by God. It would seem religious zealotry has had some positive aspects and consequences throughout history. Point being if the prolifers are right on some level, the current state of affairs regarding abortion is very, very scary.
Since we don't know, would you give no creedence to those who think playing it safe if the best option? If you admit we don't know you are granting the possibility that abortion may in fact equate to murder under certain circumstances. So what you'd be arguing is that it's okay to turn a blind eye to wholesale murder so long as it's kept quiet and not looked into, basically so long as it can't be absolutely proven. I'm sure you can see the problem with that viewpoint, and it is a logical consequence of the above view. Religious and nonreligious prolifers would say that, because we don't know, all the more reason to not allow abortion. After all, whatever the point at which the fetus becomes human is, eventually all that don't self abort will pass that point eventually. And it seems there is no way, or at least none acceptable to the prochoice crowd, to allow but limit abortions because there always seems to be some circumstance they want an exception made for. Rape and incest for example. They have nothing to do with the potential child and whether or not it deserves to live or die. The sufferring of the mother only has a bearing on what should be done to the person who hurt her, not the child's fate. However, that's an exception the whole prochoice crowd seems to want. The health of the mother is another. Why should abortion be the only option, that is if birth threatens the life of the mother grant she should be allowed to have the fetus removed, why does it have to be in a way that completely eliminates its chances of survival? Why can she not carry it as long as possible and then transplant the kid into an incubator? I'll admit medical possibilities limit options in many cases, but it is conceivable that there are or will be options in the future, in which case a late term abortion or even any abortion would no longer be justified by the health of the mother, because it might not always be necessary to guarantee the death of the child to guarantee the health of the mother in those cases.
I certainly don't think a zygote is human, but it is potentially a human with a whole life in front of it and that is not arguable. As such, I'm not so sure that just because we don't know to minute at which point it can be defined as human that killing it should be acceptable.
jarhead
Well-known member
No, I blame our government for 9/11, but that's another topic. I wasn't saying all religious people are prolife. I was saying that out of the prolife group, a large part are that way because of their respective religions.
I don't say people are zealots because of their views. I say that because of their actions. I have no problem dealing with different views than my own. But they lose credibility when they start bombing clinics, getting violent etc., or being hypocritical in judging others. God is the only one who can judge us, so why don't they let him? That's why they come off as lunatics. And ask a prolifer what he thinks of the death penalty, and watch the stuttering begin.(Not all, but many) It's about all human life being precious when it's a baby, not when it's a murdering rapist, or homeless people starving or freezing to death etc. etc. or when a politician needs votes in the bible belt.
I knew I was setting myself up there.
No both sides don't know the definitive answer when life begins. But I'm thinking of the point when it has a soul,consciousness,etc. etc. Immeasurable things. But we can measure when it's NOT a human being physically. .[/quote]
Lots of things are potential life. Sperm is if you want to think of it in potential terms. Where would you draw the line then? In this case I've damn near commited genocide due to the years of masturbation and blowjobs.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
I should clarify, I know nothing is set in stone, and for the most part, this is of course my opinion...but, that's the problem, EVERYTHING is subjective because everything is percieved and interpreted by a unique being.
Well, IMO, the stage of development could be described similarly. If the embryo exhibits uniquely human characteristics, then its a human.
Ever hear the saying "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck." ?CDB said:
Well, IMO, the stage of development could be described similarly. If the embryo exhibits uniquely human characteristics, then its a human.
Then refer to my original statement, lol.
That would be a ridiculous thing to claim, considering its pretty damn hard to differentiate between blastocysts. ahaha...
This would be no different than what goes on today. Dr.'s get sued all the time for things like that.
Already things taken into consideration in all litigation against doctors. These aren't new concerns, and people are sue-happy. I'm not concerned about how 'people' will try to take advantage of a law. I'm more concerned with the law protecting people.
This goes back to the root of the abortion debate, so I'm not going to bother answering it.
No, then it becomes a moral / ethical issue--a real one. At this point there is no reasonable argument against a child being a living human--its the determination of when the fertilized cell becomes a living human that is being debated, (the age of emancipation, 16yrs in the US with a petition, 18-19 is the normal age range otherwise).
Again, its the age at which a fertilized cell has developed enough to be considered human that is being debated. Its pretty well known by biologists when there is enough development to exhibit signs of what we commonly refer to as life. At different stages of development, we're nto more 'alive' than bacteria, a sponge, etc.
You're acting as if this isn't a problem already, hahaa. This is why judges have discretion over rulings and why we're judged by a jury of our peers. We're trying to minimize damage by taking things into consideration and approaching each case individually. There is no law that is 100% set in stone. So, this won't be as big of an issue as you make it. You can easily apply your fearful logic to an endless amount of currently existing laws which are perfectly fine laws.
IV) What if one parent wants the child and the other doesn't? If the wishes of the parents are the issue, the father should have a say. If he is willing to care completely for the child and wants it with all his heart, but the woman doesn't, is it murder when gets the abortion, or do her rights over her own body trump the father's desire for the child's life, and if so why? Does her desire to avoid a mere nine months discomfort completely trump the legal protection for the fetus' life that the father's desire to see it live would otherwise give it? Is the life of the fetus to be completely determined by the convenience of the mother up until the arbitrary point where it turns into a child?See this is a little different than the rest of the abortion debate, and this is a really good debatable topic (for a different thread). But, IMO, fathers are getting assed out on this 'womans right to choose' thing. Not 'enough' association with what I was talking about earlier to take up thread space though.
This is too dependent on that last quote of yours to really get into. As of right now, according to 'abortion law', this isnt' an issue. And this really has nothing to do with the stage at which we have a 'human life'. Good topic though, and it would be good for another debate.
4/5 of the complexity was you going off on an unrelated tangent, haah. As for the debate at hand in respect with the current law and a womans right to choose, its not too complex to say that if a mother determines she wants to have the baby that it can be legally considered to be alive. And, if she decides she will abort it, it would legally be non-existant. The ramifications would really be minor, and if anything, would maybe save some poor sap from being charged with manslaughter for getting into a car accident and causing a fetus to abort while it was already on the way to the abortion clinic.
No, its not the same, but I'm not comparing the two, I'm saying that if method #1 of our parent prevention plan fails, use method #2
In order to believe there is something 'inherently special' about a fertilized cell, you have to believe in the religious, or mystical portion of the subject.
If you disagree, can you logically explain the difference between a canine embryo and a human embryo? Why is one so much more special than the other that we debate it so vehemontly, when essentially they are exactly the same. They are randomly developed traits that allowed for our particular species to flourish.
We're now 6.3 bn ppl dense in the world, and these huge brains we've evolved allow for us to control our birth rates and there is nothing wrong with controlling our birth rates, or choosing not to become a parent when given the choice. Just don't do it in a fashion that causes excruciating pain to a poor defenseless fetus who has been dreaming away for some time...that's the thought that horrifies me.
We cant do much about the fact we need male and female contributors to have a child, but other animals have evolved methods of changing sex which allow them to do that. Similarly, we developed large complex brains that will enable us to manipulate life in many, many ways. Dont' be surprised if people start combining sperm+sperm and egg+egg in the near future.
How,and the requirements of a human being propogated are things we've evolved. Our physical evolutin in this sense may be at a hault, but our intellectual evolution is being compounded by itself. (We created technology that allows us to further advance ourselves). This IS part of our evolution. So, i see the ability to control birth as a part of human evolution. IMO there is nothing wrong with deciding to be a parent or not to be a parent. The only thing I think we need to be cautious of is HOW we do it. Like I said earlier, it makes me cringe to think about how some late term abortions are done on fetus' that can think, feel, dream, etc. The pain has to be horrendous, and I have a respect for emotion and feeling.
If it were simply 'life' that were the factor that made me oppose abortion, Id also oppose stepping on the grass. Afterall, you'd be killing it. However, I dont' think that way...I walk on grass all the time. Now, if the grass could feel pain, and was crying from the torturous pain, I'd sure as hell stay off of the grass.
My point...Its not entirely "life" I'm worried about in the abortion process. Hence my reasoning for hating late term abortion. I only brought up my point of parents and deciding to or to not have a baby because you brought up legal issues involving manslaughter / murder involving a fetus/embryo that was considered to be a person by the law. It was a side issue.
Eh, I'm stopping here...its super late, and I'm super tired. I can't even keep my eyes straight...they're crossing on me :blink: (seriously) slept a total of 4-5 hrs in the 48hrs before yestarday, so I'm trying to catch up on sleep...ehhe.
Anyway, I'll just try to sum up my position in a few words.
We should have the right to choose whether or not we want to have children. If we can outsmart mothernature, who is she to tell us what to do?
If we choose not to have children, do so in a fashion that doesn't involve torturing something else to death (late term abortion).
Late term abortion should be legal for doctors to perform at any given time in the event of an emergency, but aside from that, you better have a darn good reason to get an abortion after you've know you were pregnant for 3+ months! A judges discretion is necessary when there is no emergency.
Unless it can think/feel/etc, its no more alive than a sponge.
Reproduction is reproduction and its no more special (note: i didn't say interesting) that a human can do it than it is a fly or a bacteria can do it. Sex is pleasureable...people who found sex pleasureable reproduced more...therefore, we reproduce a lot. We can now have sex and not have babies, so why not?
CDB
Registered User
jarhead said:
For the same reason they would try and stop any murder they see in progress. As for the bombings and violence, same principle. In the context of their views those actions are understandable.
Generally they would say they'd prefer to wait until after someone has committed a crime before killing them. Perhaps it's not all life they are concerned with but innocent life. There is no paradox when someone supports the death penalty but opposes abortion. Unborn babies have committed no crime.
I knew I was setting myself up there.
Not really. We can make a judgment about whether or not it has certain characteristics and organs. Beyond that there's a lot of conjecture. Once the fetus has a brain who is to say it can't feel pain or has the beginnings of a sense of self? Pain certainly seems a possibility, there are a couple very graphic sonogram movies of babies being aborted and opening their mouths and possibly screaming while it's happening in the womb. Not defininitive by any means, but it should give any thinking person pause when a behavior that instinctual is evident in the fetus' response to it's own imminent death.
Me too, but generally that sperm won't do anything, it is just tissue. It has no potential on its own without an egg. An egg has no such potential either on its own. Once conception happens, the potential is evident and obvious and doesn't require anyone to do anything else. That fertilized egg, absent complications, will develop into a fetus and will be born. Trying to draw a parallel between sperm on its own, an egg on its own, random tissue scraped off a body or blood, etc., and a fertilized egg that has begun dividing is another strawman argument against prolifers that doesn't help the prochoice movement.
CDB
Registered User
Yup, but I also know people who think ferrets are rats and they aren't even in rodent family. What the **** are you doing up at this time of night/morning? For me it's just insomnia, but I think I see evidence of you here at these times regularly. That's harsh living man.kwyckemynd00 said:
Interesting definition. I can't find any holes at a glance except the potential subjective definition of what is uniquely human. Is it just the organs and their arrangement, or does it include behaviors and brain/though patterns if they're detectable? It would seem to allow for a wide window of time where the fetus becomes recognizably human in a physical sense up to the point of birth and even after. After all, the brain isn't done developing when you're born.
The law does not demonstrate a significant ability to exclude the ridiculous, which is one of the reasons I believe we're all anonymous here because we would happily be used to take up space in a prison, even if it meant letting a rapist or murderer out, because we like to use certain substances.
The problem is that when the fetus is considered human, terminating it is murder, and that ain't a miniscule crime. It is hard to swallow how something can legally be nothing until it belches or farts or demonstrates some physical characteristic that all of sudden makes it human, especially since that means technically no crime can have been committed if no one ever observed the fetus to determine if it had reached the stage where termination meant murder. That means even with a body, a motive and even an admission, technically a murderer can walk way unpunished from the crime scene unless the characteristics that define humanity in a fetus are physical exclusively and have been observed. She could burn the fetus and poof, evidence gone. So even under your definition the fetus isn't a human until someone observes it as such. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle should not be applied to the legal system, it should stay in the realm of QM.
Even though I'm not a lawyer, I learned to think like on a long time ago.
One of those people presumably being the fetus at a certain point. Being civily sued and charged with manslaughter or murder are quite different. If that fetus dies and is defined as human that falls into murder and manslaughter territory under certain circumstances, not a civil action. A possible consequence is a refusal of insurance companies to insure doctors who preform abortions, and no more legal abortions by default, or no more unless they are medically necessary and defensible as such.
That's the key though and it has to be addressed. If it's not no one can say for sure the right to choose trumps the right to life, and the smug attitude and dismissal of some prochoicers towards prolifers (no one here, just making a general statement) are certainly no more justified than the similar attitudes of prolifers. If it's not addressed it's also impossible to defend any position on the issue as every position is arbitrary in the end, a matter of preference.
EEMain will kill me for saying this, but what about 100 years from now? Society and the law are not static, nor are they always advancing as a rule. Define it as legally okay to kill a fetus today, tomorrow something more. It is a possibility, as evidenced by history and the general tendency of people to do very horrible things to others, sometimes en masse.
I like your standard despite its subjective aspect.
I understand your point, but more lawyers and more legal crap like this is, I think, to be avoided not invited. Nor would I generally trust my peers or even a judge these days to reliably tell me how to tie a pair of shoelaces to be honest.
Yup, but to date you're the only person with enough of a fucking brain to point that out. Cheers.
I see your point, but it is relevant to our debate here because the standard for a possible murder/manslaughter charge if the fetus is pre or proto human as you have defined it is whether or not the parents want the kid. That there are two parents who might have conflicting opinions on the subject throws a monkey wrench into the works on all levels. Would it be sorted out legally? Likely yes.
But again it's a conflation of a serious question with moral, ethical and legal implications: possible murder. There are no circumstances under which murder should be acceptable or excusable or even unprosecutable on a technicality that doesn't involve some violation of the defendant's rights, but your scenario leads to that as a possiblity with fetuses under certain circumstances. That opens up the possiblity of bad/disturbing precedents and they can bleed into other areas very easily.
On this issue it's really impossible to avoid the weighty issues no matter how practical you try to be or how artificially you try to limit the scope of the issue, because in the end whether people want to admit it or not we are defining the point at which murder begins and the point at which it may be acceptable under certain circumstances. I know of no other situation where the existence of one human might endanger another and the one doing the endangering can definitely be presumed to have no intent to cause harm and not be behaving recklessly, and yet still be killed to save the life of the other person except a late term abortion because the health of the mother is in danger.
I think it's more complex than you want to let on. We're talking about the point, legally, morally and ethically the termination of a thing turns into the termination of a person, and the latter has serious consequences and the former none. From a practical point of view I would never want a murder charge of any kind based on whether or not someone wanted the victim around. Even if it could be legally confined to this very specific instance. I just don't like the implications.
Allowing that, option one has no potential to be considered a murder, but option two at some point does.No, its not the same, but I'm not comparing the two, I'm saying that if method #1 of our parent prevention plan fails, use method #2
Allowing that, even when the determination is based on your definition all the way at the top it's not black and white.
But I wouldn't allow that, because in doing so you ingore the views of people like me, who are not religious and don't really give a damn one way or another about God or the soul or anything like that, and still think the potential for a human life in those dividing cells deserves more ethical, moral and legal consideration than a sterile vacuum cleaner offers.
Because one might grow into the greatest American President in human history and bring world peace and unending prosperity through a few simple policy decisions, and the other will never have the potential to do anything more significnt than shitting on the former's rug. It's not a medical/scientific distinction, but it is a logical/valid one and it's why the debate exists.
Me too, but even your definition allows for the possiblity of this happening regularly.
Nor do I but that is not the issue. Someone deciding whether or not to adopt is making that decision and not necessarily at the cost of another human's life. An abortion is not the decision whether or not to be a parent. It is the decision to end a pregnancy and eliminate that human life or potential human life in the womb, giving it no chance to live, ever. A woman could just as easily bring it to term, deliver it and put it up for adoption. Is 9 months of inconvenience in her life and a few bad hours of pushing and breathing strange worth that life?
To me it is central and no less important that the ethical and moral issues. If we based the decision on the pain the child could possibly feel, well all kinds of arguments could surface about just who can and cannot feel and whether or not murdering people under this or that circumstance if punishable. Like I mentioned, laws are not static, nor do they remain confined. Precedents from this area can transfer to another. For something to be a law the principle it is codified from has to be as axiomatic as possible. Regarding the possibilites of murder, manslaughter, etc., they're central to me because they focus on the central issue of if and when the fetus can be considered alive, to have rights and to be deserving of protection.
I agree in a general sense, but as some of the prolifers here pointed out, birth control is better defined as conception control. Abortion is in a very real sense the avoidance of the consequences of actions where the risk was known and in my opinion not considered. The people I've known, the married couples specifically trying to have kids, lead me to the conclusion that you've got to be very unlucky or fucking your brains out without a care for prevention to get pregnant 'by accident.' I've had my share of close calls with girls, back when I was young and though pull and pray was enough. But there were plenty of times I didn't pull and still no little CDBs running around. Thank God for that in more ways than one.We should have the right to choose whether or not we want to have children. If we can outsmart mothernature, who is she to tell us what to do?
If we choose not to have children, do so in a fashion that doesn't involve torturing something else to death (late term abortion).
Late term abortion should be legal for doctors to perform at any given time in the event of an emergency, but aside from that, you better have a darn good reason to get an abortion after you've know you were pregnant for 3+ months! A judges discretion is necessary when there is no emergency.
Unless it can think/feel/etc, its no more alive than a sponge.
Reproduction is reproduction and its no more special (note: i didn't say interesting) that a human can do it than it is a fly or a bacteria can do it. Sex is pleasureable...people who found sex pleasureable reproduced more...therefore, we reproduce a lot. We can now have sex and not have babies, so why not?
But the point remains, for the most part a woman has to work at getting pregnant and has to be pretty numb in the head to get pregnant when she didn't want to 'by accident.' Which leads me to the conclusion that abortion as it's being used these days is 'understood' as birth control when conception control was conveniently forgotten in the heat of the moment or just because one or both of the participants were stupid/irresponsible. Let it go on like that or not, at the very least it says something not too pretty about our culture even if it's only the wholesale termination of potential life.
doggzj
Board Supporter
jomi822 said:
You're right, we should not have to worry about the consequences of our decisions! If I want to go out and get drunk, then who cares what consequences come from that decision! I mean, I MIGHT go out and get a DUI and kill some inocent teenager with my car, but hey, I'm a 16 year old it shouldn't matter!
Beau
Well-known member
More times than not, my forum "contributions" (if they can be called that) comprise flip comments, about immaterial events/concepts. Something intended to entertain – with tongue in firmly placed in cheek.
This thread is different.
I welcome the type of healthy exchange I'm reading here (and certainly do not have any flip comments in its regard).
Still, I think we need to keep sight a few things. People with different views aren't wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc. What is stupid, etc., is for anyone to see this issue as anything less than the complex situation it is. Again, I doubt anyone here would actually prefer abortion be a part of their legacy. There are reasons this is the case. It might be valuable to reflect on them them; as that might give us some additional insight. Another possible perspective - for the males, would your thoughts on abortion be any different if the girl facing this decision was your sister after having been involved in a long term relationship with a boyfried. I think the more "real" we make it, the less theorectical the discussion becomes.
I also agree that one's perspective changes when one has a tangible point of reference (or, in my case - 3 of them); that is – a situation in which the "blob" became a son or daughter. Whether or not it should be, when the discussion moves from one based on academic beliefs to one based on feelings, personal experience and parental observations - things change. Again, that is something one has to experience to appreciate the difference. I’m not saying those of us with kids “know”; but it makes the argument more personal.
I can't offer much on the thought of what constitutes conception; other than to point out that no one is ever "a little bit pregnant". One is either pregnant or not. In my mind, pregnancy involves a host carrying a yet-to-be-delivered offspring; thus while something may appear to be a blob, that blob is the essence of what later is designed to develop into a functional being. The point at which it can feel, becomes viable outside its host, etc., isn't something I think about. I think we have all heard reference to someone who has miscarried; frequently people say "she lost the baby". Hmmm.
Abortion for convenience is never "good" - and in my mind there may be a great deal of collateral damage. Worse, abortion intended primarily to benefit the impregnator from assuming responsibility creates real issues; especially if the impregnatee is pressured into it (I’ve witnessed to results through a then-close relationship I had with a couple).
Here is the bomb question – would we be better off if we were to assume each sexual encounter outside of committed relationship would actually result in a conception and, as a condition precedent, be willing to assume parental responsibility if that were the outcome? Just food for thought.
Lastly, although morality cannot be legislated - the influence of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage cannot be dismissed. Although the Ten Commandments, for example, reflect our Judeo-Christian heritage; I would assume that most of its teachings are not generally inconsistent with those of other main stream religions. It just might be that many religious thoughts are only generally inconsistent with a general lack of religious conviction (that isn't a judgement call - it is simple a possibility). Regardless, to say that laws, regulations, acts, etc., shouldn't ever be based on religious concepts seems to negate or wish away the fundamental idea that there are indeed some "truths" that exist. Laws, etc., enacted by those elected should reflect those who elected theme (sort of the underlying concept in a representative form of government), yet I might not agree with a particular decision. For example (maybe not a good one), should I fail to agree with "gravity" - doesn't mean that it doesn't generally apply to most people, in most instances, or that it shouldn't/doesn't exist, rather that I just don't embrace it.
This thread is different.
I welcome the type of healthy exchange I'm reading here (and certainly do not have any flip comments in its regard).
Still, I think we need to keep sight a few things. People with different views aren't wrong, stupid, ignorant, etc. What is stupid, etc., is for anyone to see this issue as anything less than the complex situation it is. Again, I doubt anyone here would actually prefer abortion be a part of their legacy. There are reasons this is the case. It might be valuable to reflect on them them; as that might give us some additional insight. Another possible perspective - for the males, would your thoughts on abortion be any different if the girl facing this decision was your sister after having been involved in a long term relationship with a boyfried. I think the more "real" we make it, the less theorectical the discussion becomes.
I also agree that one's perspective changes when one has a tangible point of reference (or, in my case - 3 of them); that is – a situation in which the "blob" became a son or daughter. Whether or not it should be, when the discussion moves from one based on academic beliefs to one based on feelings, personal experience and parental observations - things change. Again, that is something one has to experience to appreciate the difference. I’m not saying those of us with kids “know”; but it makes the argument more personal.
I can't offer much on the thought of what constitutes conception; other than to point out that no one is ever "a little bit pregnant". One is either pregnant or not. In my mind, pregnancy involves a host carrying a yet-to-be-delivered offspring; thus while something may appear to be a blob, that blob is the essence of what later is designed to develop into a functional being. The point at which it can feel, becomes viable outside its host, etc., isn't something I think about. I think we have all heard reference to someone who has miscarried; frequently people say "she lost the baby". Hmmm.
Abortion for convenience is never "good" - and in my mind there may be a great deal of collateral damage. Worse, abortion intended primarily to benefit the impregnator from assuming responsibility creates real issues; especially if the impregnatee is pressured into it (I’ve witnessed to results through a then-close relationship I had with a couple).
Here is the bomb question – would we be better off if we were to assume each sexual encounter outside of committed relationship would actually result in a conception and, as a condition precedent, be willing to assume parental responsibility if that were the outcome? Just food for thought.
Lastly, although morality cannot be legislated - the influence of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage cannot be dismissed. Although the Ten Commandments, for example, reflect our Judeo-Christian heritage; I would assume that most of its teachings are not generally inconsistent with those of other main stream religions. It just might be that many religious thoughts are only generally inconsistent with a general lack of religious conviction (that isn't a judgement call - it is simple a possibility). Regardless, to say that laws, regulations, acts, etc., shouldn't ever be based on religious concepts seems to negate or wish away the fundamental idea that there are indeed some "truths" that exist. Laws, etc., enacted by those elected should reflect those who elected theme (sort of the underlying concept in a representative form of government), yet I might not agree with a particular decision. For example (maybe not a good one), should I fail to agree with "gravity" - doesn't mean that it doesn't generally apply to most people, in most instances, or that it shouldn't/doesn't exist, rather that I just don't embrace it.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Great post Beau. I think that you're right here, that the act of copulation is meant to concieve a child, and that it should be taken with that degree of respect and seriousness when a young person decides they're ready for sex.
But, sex is also fun, enjoyable,and a bonding act between two people (hopefully), and a child is usually not the desired outcome when two people engage in intercourse.
I think the key to preventing unwanted pregnancy is education, education, education. Kids shouldnt be afraid to talk to their parents about sex, and parents shouldnt freak out about talking to their kids about birth control.
If the government wants to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancy, then safe and convienient birth control methods should be free and available to everyone. But of course, we still havent figured out how to manage an effective health care system for our citizens...
BV
CDB
Registered User
Beau said:
While I've never had to deal with my girl getting an abortion of my kid, I have been involved in a couple with friends who didn't want to go to the clinic alone. It's actually exposure to what women go through getting an abortion that makes me very uneasy about the process even though I maintain a prochoice stance. I don't know one woman who has gotten an abortion who doesn't regret it on a significant level, even though that regret does not rule their lives.
Don't you have anything wise assey or flip to say?
Same here, serious pressure from an ex and parents on both sides lead to a decision she has always regretted, and maybe so have they. And I walked her into the clinic. Often I hope I never have to deal with such a situation again or one even closer to home, because the ethics of the procedure aside, simply having it done is a harsh decision to make for woman. Sometimes I think people, women particularly, would be better off if it was just not an option unless their life were at risk.
CDB
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
Steel belted radial condoms for all men and the pill for all women. Which would mean perhaps a lot more women taking the pill, which would mean massive wide scale use of what is basically an oral steroid, and data surrounding prolonged use...
I think this is one government program I can support. And porn, free porn. Just because.
Beau
Well-known member
CDB said:
I don't follow. Honestly, no. Although I've not had to deal with abortion within our family, nonetheless for some reason (I think) I have a true compassion for those who have had to struggle with an unwanted pregnancy.
Most of my flip comments are so absurd, I would guess most just roll their eyes.
Summary: Although I'm not sure what prompted your question - there aren't/won't be any comments from me in this thread that are knowingly intended as flip or smart A.
Any chance you can elaborate?
foo.c
Board Supporter
I just wanted to define some terminology. People are using zygotes, embryos and fetuses as interchangable and they are not the same thing.
Zygote is the stage right after fertilization . A zygote is a single cell. I believe about 20-30% of zygotes will progress into further development.
Cell division begins pretty quickly at which point it is called something else. (I forget.) During this time we are traveling down the fallopian tubes towards the uterus.
Somewhere around day 5-7 the expanding blastocyst breaks through the zona pellucida (basically a membrane) and is ready to implant in the uterus.
After implantation it is an embryo.
At 9 weeks it is a fetus.
A woman won't even know she is pregnant until a couple of weeks after implantation so using characterizations of zygotes and blastocysts to support an argument in a debate about abortion is a non sequitur.
Zygote is the stage right after fertilization . A zygote is a single cell. I believe about 20-30% of zygotes will progress into further development.
Cell division begins pretty quickly at which point it is called something else. (I forget.) During this time we are traveling down the fallopian tubes towards the uterus.
Somewhere around day 5-7 the expanding blastocyst breaks through the zona pellucida (basically a membrane) and is ready to implant in the uterus.
After implantation it is an embryo.
At 9 weeks it is a fetus.
A woman won't even know she is pregnant until a couple of weeks after implantation so using characterizations of zygotes and blastocysts to support an argument in a debate about abortion is a non sequitur.
CDB
Registered User
Beau said:
Speaking of food and abortion in the same posts, I have a love for eggs cooked in almost anyway, and what is an egg but a chicken that never was? What is an omelet but mass murder, in the most horrid way too? I'm now having visions of a Walter Cronkite version of a chicken on tv in the coop, clucking over black and white images of omelets being made, poaching going on, and a pic Colonel Sanders at the top of the Chicken FBI's Ten Most In Need of Pecking.