Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually my whole argument hinges on the presence of consciousness, but that was lost in the mix, me chatting about the viability was simply me chiming in on other posters discussing viability as a factor. I was simply magnanimous enough to let them frame the context of the discussion. At some point we will be able to go straight from egg + sperm to a viable human without it ever even needing to be inside a woman. That is why viability is not really the best metric to use, because as technology advances the point of viability changes.
At SOME point, SOMETHING changed from "non alive non human" to "alive human", unless you also classify human sperm and eggs as "alive humans". This is pretty much indisputable.
For me, I would say that moment is the emergence of consciousness. That to me is the point where abortion goes from morally neutral to morally questionable, depending on the circumstances involved.
Certainly there is a point at which the non alive eggs and sperm combine to create life, an alive embryo . I think a fetus is alive at this point, although clearly in the early stages of life . If someone can give scientific proof that the newly created embryo with a separate identifiable DNA than its mother is not alive at that point and that there is a point later on in which life is " switched on" , I am all ears . Provide the accepted scientific proof of this .
Consciousness isn't a bad parameter . Obviously without neural activity no pain is experienced . This sort of deals with the ethical considerations , but really doesn't completely deal with the moral issues of simply using abortion as retroactive birth control for irresponsible people .
Certainly there is a point at which the non alive eggs and sperm combine to create life, an alive embryo . I think a fetus is alive at this point, although clearly in the early stages of life . If someone can give scientific proof that the newly created embryo with a separate identifiable DNA than its mother is not alive at that point and that there is a point later on in which life is " switched on" , I am all ears . Provide the accepted scientific proof of this .
Consciousness isn't a bad parameter . Obviously without neural activity no pain is experienced . This sort of deals with the ethical considerations , but really doesn't completely deal with the moral issues of simply using abortion as retroactive birth control for irresponsible people .
Sperm is genetically differentiated than the mothers DNA. Are sperm alive?
Sperm is genetically differentiated than the mothers DNA. Are sperm alive?
Who claimed being genetically different equates being alive ? My point was that the sperm and eggs combine to create life . This is indisputable . Each one of us are the result of such a union.
My answer was that while the sperm and eggs are not a separate life , the combination of them is when a living embryo is formed , and this life can be differentiated from that of the mother by its DNA . Let's stay with the point of the discussion please .
Who claimed being genetically different equates being alive ? My point was that the sperm and eggs combine to create life . This is indisputable . Each one of us are the result of such a union.
My answer was that while the sperm and eggs are not a separate life , the combination of them is when a living embryo is formed , and this life can be differentiated from that of the mother by its DNA . Let's stay with the point of the discussion please .
If its status as "alive" is connected to its genetic difference from the mother, than eggs and ovum are also alive.
Also, egg and sperm = life? Says who? You? A zygote is literally a cell, one cell, at fertilization. If cells are distinct lives, than tumors are alive. Do you really think we should prevent people form removing tumors because they are "alive"?
Yes, teenagers should be punished for their awful sexual behavior by being forced to have children they don't want and won't take care of. Maybe they'll be left to starve, or abused. That'll teach 'em.
Teenagers shouldn't be having sex in the first place but they were dumb enough not to use birth controls pills or other protection so they wnat a (The ones who do) a abortion because they want the easy way out instead of living with the consequences. If they don't want to keep the baby that fine but that what adoption is for.
Of course you can't stop teens from having sex but if they are going to then they need to use some protection or think about it before they get under the sheets.
Democrats VASTLY overestimate how much people care about abortion rights. The more Democrats focus on this one very small issue, the more territory (especially in the South, West, and Midwest) they lose.
The GOP platform states that it is pro-life, no where in the platform does is state that the GOP stands for denying abortion. That is you projecting your own beliefs on to others.
What do you think pro-life means? simply that GOP wants everyone to live? Both Pro-life and Pro-choice is about abortion. since that word makes everyone squirm we use ridiculous euphemisms.
One of their main focus is to not only defund Planned Parenthood which provides women's healthcare and safe abortions in the US but AROUND THE WORLD wherever US aid is used for abortions. Republican states have made it so difficult where the entire state has one, a single clinic, to take care of all women who need abortions. They have to take time off from work to go across state to one near and get it done.
This is the reason the GOP and Republicans, men and women, are looked upon as misogynists and anti-women. They may not always believe what they say about abortions, they care nothing about what poor women want to do, but that is what they have to do and act in order order to win elections.
What do you think pro-life means? simply that GOP wants everyone to live? Both Pro-life and Pro-choice is about abortion. since that word makes everyone squirm we use ridiculous euphemisms.
One of their main focus is to not only defund Planned Parenthood which provides women's healthcare and safe abortions in the US but AROUND THE WORLD wherever US aid is used for abortions. Republican states have made it so difficult where the entire state has one, a single clinic, to take care of all women who need abortions. They have to take time off from work to go across state to one near and get it done.
This is the reason the GOP and Republicans, men and women, are looked upon as misogynists and anti-women. They may not always believe what they say about abortions, they care nothing about what poor women want to do, but that is what they have to do and act in order order to win elections.
Most people don't care either way just that we want Dems to quit robbing us to pay for people's poor choices.
It's like watching a dog dry hump the air when another one is in heat and then being forced to pay for the aftermath because they can't.
I am independent, but I tend to lean right and vote Republican most of the time. I am against abortion as birth control, however, I don't think making it illegal will really solve anything. Women will still get abortions, only they will be illegal and possibly unsafe. And there are some women who will need abortions for various medical reasons and other reasons. I suppose I am anti-abortion but still pro-choice.
I think the key to ending abortions is similar to the way we've started to end smoking in this country, make it socially unacceptable make it the thing people choose not to do. I've pondered this in my head for a while, "how" to do that. It would involve more social programs (and therefore tax dollars). My church has programs to help what is calls crisis pregnancies (offer shelter, medical help, and adoption services). I wonder if a larger program would be worth it to tax payers--someone would have to do a very thorough cost analysis.
Is it cheaper to provide cheap birth control, counseling, sex education, and if needed adoption placement help than it is to not provide these things but then end up with more mothers on welfare, poverty, and the costs associated with a higher crime rate? (On the crime rate thing, it's a hypothesis. There seems to be a connection between a higher crime rate when legal abortion is not available. I think the idea is more people growing up in poverty and more likely to turn to crime because of it).
It's not a simple answer to be sure, but what I do know is making abortion illegal won't stop it and it won't save anyone's life (mother or unborn). Women still get abortions when it's illegal. Like prohibition, it solves nothing. And Pro-life has gotten nowhere in 40+ years. Maybe it's time to take a different approach if the same old thing isn't working. Put more effort into prevention and social change so that abortions happen less and less until it dies off by choice (like what is happening to smoking).
Keeping abortion legal, safe, and accessible SAVES lives. There is a study that correlates child abuse with lesser number of abortions. That abortions have actually gone down is a fact, but when it goes down because women are forced to carry their unwanted pregnancies, child abuse rises.
Why are the Republicans obsessed with denying women safe abortion?
If it becomes illegal, which seems to be what they want, women will resort to unsafe abortions and die or will have children they do not want.
What do these people think will happen to these unwanted children?
It seems they want To provide no help for single mothers, no help for birth control, no help for abortions, and no help for children. They just want them to be poor and die.
And they wonder why those not of their kind call them lacking in compassion?
Why are Democrat obsessed with killing babies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At some point we will be able to go straight from egg + sperm to a viable human without it ever even needing to be inside a woman. That is why viability is not really the best metric to use, because as technology advances the point of viability changes.
