believing in your religion or whether you are non-religious, do you agree with abortion? (churches, Catholic)
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.
It's up to the girl who got raped. Most girls who get raped don't want the baby, because they are very scared. It's bad, but her choice. She can always put the baby up to adoption,Moderator cut: delete
Depends where you are as to whether it is up to her or not. Some places it is legal some places it is not.
However if we decide that a foetus has rights, then it is non-sensical to say those rights are negated by a crime committed by another person nothing to do with that foetus on another person also nothing to do with the foetus.
Again I ask: Can you think of any other scenario where person X loses their right to life because person Y committed a crime on person Z????
As a pro-choice campaigner therefore I NEVER use the rape argument as part of my argument for allowing women to choose to have abortions, ever.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-11-2011 at 04:13 AM..
One of the most common and fervent arguments for allowing abortion (I'm sure it was made somewhere in this thread, it always is) is that if they aren't legally available women will try to self abort...sticking wires and things up in themselves, etc. This was what I was talking about when I was saying women didn't try to abort in the past.
Well actually in that case you're point is not only wrong but irrelevant. It is wrong because women have done this in the past a lot. The wish to abort unwanted children has been around for a very long time, and women HAVE self aborted very much in the past. Especially in times where the child was not the husbands and so was evidence of infidelity, but we can list many motivations.
It is irrelevant because the conversation is about abortion and whether people agree with it or not. So it does not really matter if we are talking about people doing it themselves or doing it in a clinic... we still either agree with it or not.
I am a pro-choice campaigner and "self abortion" and "rape" are the two arguments that I refuse to ever use to support my position. I find them irrelevant and contradictory arguments to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Please let's ditch the "zygote" mantra.
No. I know it would be convenient to you to dismiss the parts of the conversation that do not suit you (like when you said something was "not up for debate" when it very much was) but I am not about to pander to this. These are very important parts of the discussion, they are very important terms to know, use and understand, and I will not simply dismiss their use simply because they inconvenience you and your agenda.
At the end of the day a discussion of abortion is linked... inextricably linked.... to whether the thing being aborted can be said to qualify for having "rights" or not. Clearly if an argument can be made that it DOES have rights then abortion automatically becomes very, very wrong.
The attempt made my some is to use a very dilute definition of the word "human", declare that that definition is "not up for debate" and therefore by default attempt to establish the entity qualifies for "human rights".
I am not conned by such use of linguistics. There is a massive difference between zygotes, feotuses, babies and "human persons". You simply can not escape from a conversation about what these terms are, what they mean, how we are to use them.... and most importantly what they actually mean for the "human rights" of the entity we are talking about.
I, for one, see absolutely NO argument for assigning rights to an undifferentiated clump of cells, nor an entity containing nothing at all that is the basis for the human person, such as brain function etc. In fact the cut off I argue for in abortion is one where not only is there no brain function, there is no structure to GENERATE brain function. To make an analogy to radio: I am not simply pointing at a stage in development where there is no radio waves being broadcast.... the broadcast tower has not even been built yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
So let's set the first few days after conception aside...I even stated I have no problem with the "morning after pill".
Yes, and this fact should worry YOU not me. You argue that "life" and "humanness" begin at conception, yet you are ok with the morning after pill... a pill that you should also know does not HAVE to be taken the morning after, despite the name. Some are effective many days later.
So you are making an argument for the point of conception, yet you are ok with something that terminates the development days after that. Your OWN POSITION is inconsistent here and that is a concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You commonly hear even people that accept abortion, refer to pregnant women as being "with child"
So what? This tells us nothing. You are trying to use common vagaries of the English language to make a statement about reality. This is just playing with words. I also commonly here people refer to pregnant women as being "Up the pole". They are neither up a pole, nor pregnant with one. I have heard it said that some people have a "chip on their shoulder". They do not literally have a chip on their shoulder. I have heard it said that people turn green with envy. Their skin color does not ACTUALLY change.
Playing with words is not making relevant points. We use language in all kinds of ways, and much of the time we are not actually saying what we actually mean. "With child" is just a lay term for "pregnant" and it says nothing about the actual status of the developing zygote/foetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Would you drop the wrecking ball on the house until you were SURE there wasn't a baby in there?
Unless I had some reason to think there was cause for concern, I would have no concern. So thank you for using an analogy that just made my point for me.
Unless there is a reason to think there is a cause for concern with abortion before... say.... 20 weeks of development, then it is innocent until proven guilty for me. I see no reason for concern, and I see no reason to prevent abortions.
GIVE me an argument that establishes a cause for concern, and I will call for a halt on your metaphorical wrecking ball.
The fact is you have presented no such argument, except to try and apply a generalised and undefined use of the word "human" in the hope that it will stick and will not be "up for debate".... and then followed it up with other attempts to play with linguistics such as assigning deeper meaning to "with child" than is actually intended.
Well actually in that case you're point is not only wrong but irrelevant. It is wrong because women have done this in the past a lot. The wish to abort unwanted children has been around for a very long time, and women HAVE self aborted very much in the past. Especially in times where the child was not the husbands and so was evidence of infidelity, but we can list many motivations.
It is irrelevant because the conversation is about abortion and whether people agree with it or not. So it does not really matter if we are talking about people doing it themselves or doing it in a clinic... we still either agree with it or not.
I am a pro-choice campaigner and "self abortion" and "rape" are the two arguments that I refuse to ever use to support my position. I find them irrelevant and contradictory arguments to make.
No. I know it would be convenient to you to dismiss the parts of the conversation that do not suit you (like when you said something was "not up for debate" when it very much was) but I am not about to pander to this. These are very important parts of the discussion, they are very important terms to know, use and understand, and I will not simply dismiss their use simply because they inconvenience you and your agenda.
At the end of the day a discussion of abortion is linked... inextricably linked.... to whether the thing being aborted can be said to qualify for having "rights" or not. Clearly if an argument can be made that it DOES have rights then abortion automatically becomes very, very wrong.
The attempt made my some is to use a very dilute definition of the word "human", declare that that definition is "not up for debate" and therefore by default attempt to establish the entity qualifies for "human rights".
I am not conned by such use of linguistics. There is a massive difference between zygotes, feotuses, babies and "human persons". You simply can not escape from a conversation about what these terms are, what they mean, how we are to use them.... and most importantly what they actually mean for the "human rights" of the entity we are talking about.
I, for one, see absolutely NO argument for assigning rights to an undifferentiated clump of cells, nor an entity containing nothing at all that is the basis for the human person, such as brain function etc. In fact the cut off I argue for in abortion is one where not only is there no brain function, there is no structure to GENERATE brain function. To make an analogy to radio: I am not simply pointing at a stage in development where there is no radio waves being broadcast.... the broadcast tower has not even been built yet.
Yes, and this fact should worry YOU not me. You argue that "life" and "humanness" begin at conception, yet you are ok with the morning after pill... a pill that you should also know does not HAVE to be taken the morning after, despite the name. Some are effective many days later.
So you are making an argument for the point of conception, yet you are ok with something that terminates the development days after that. Your OWN POSITION is inconsistent here and that is a concern.
So what? This tells us nothing. You are trying to use common vagaries of the English language to make a statement about reality. This is just playing with words. I also commonly here people refer to pregnant women as being "Up the pole". They are neither up a pole, nor pregnant with one. I have heard it said that some people have a "chip on their shoulder". They do not literally have a chip on their shoulder. I have heard it said that people turn green with envy. Their skin color does not ACTUALLY change.
Playing with words is not making relevant points. We use language in all kinds of ways, and much of the time we are not actually saying what we actually mean. "With child" is just a lay term for "pregnant" and it says nothing about the actual status of the developing zygote/foetus.
Unless I had some reason to think there was cause for concern, I would have no concern. So thank you for using an analogy that just made my point for me.
Unless there is a reason to think there is a cause for concern with abortion before... say.... 20 weeks of development, then it is innocent until proven guilty for me. I see no reason for concern, and I see no reason to prevent abortions.
GIVE me an argument that establishes a cause for concern, and I will call for a halt on your metaphorical wrecking ball.
The fact is you have presented no such argument, except to try and apply a generalised and undefined use of the word "human" in the hope that it will stick and will not be "up for debate".... and then followed it up with other attempts to play with linguistics such as assigning deeper meaning to "with child" than is actually intended.
The reason I brought up those other issues at all...like past prevalence of attempted abortion, burden on the mother, etc...was because these are very common arguments to support allowing women to get abortions. Of course...I don't agree with them.
MOF...I'm glad to see you are one of the few that get down to the base issues---Is what's growing inside the woman a "child/person" or is it just "cells/matter"? Is it "not a person" up to some point, where after that point it "becomes" a person? When does the "life" of a person begin?
Noting that my position is "inconsistent" means squat. If only those that had never been anything but 100% consistent about everything they thought, were allowed to make determinations...no one would be allowed...including you. I value life tremendously...but I have been party to killing hundreds, possibly thousands (tough to tell with bombs), when I was in the Army. You do know people typically qualify even their most strongly held positions, don't you? That you see that as "a concern"...is a concern!
The point about pregnant women commonly being referred to as "with child" was to note the prevalence of people viewing what was in the woman as a child.
Your comparisons are out in left field. As you noted--People don't think pregnant women are REALLY up a pole, nor are they. People never REALLY have a chip on their shoulder. And envious people never REALLY turn green. BUT!...Many people REALLY mean a pregnant woman has a child inside her.
Historically, and in some places even today...If you kill a woman that is pregnant, you are liable for TWO lives.
The fact that you can put forth:..."Unless there is a reason to think there is a cause for concern with abortion before... say.... 20 weeks of development, then it is innocent until proven guilty for me. I see no reason for concern, and I see no reason to prevent abortions."...shows that you feel YOUR determination, and the half of the population that thinks like you, is all that matters...and the contrary determination held by the other half of the population, doesn't even count to be considered. If you did feel the other half of the populations' position, that opposes yours, had possible merit, you would HAVE to stop the "wrecking ball".
See Nozz, this is what demonstrates your logic and reason fails... and proves that in the end...you also feel "it's not up for debate".
If you REALLY felt "it very much is debatable" (ie: not settled)...you couldn't support abortion rights unless and until the debate was settled and definitively determined the way you see it, because, as you say, "At the end of the day a discussion of abortion is linked... inextricably linked.... to whether the thing being aborted can be said to qualify for having "rights" or not. Clearly if an argument can be made that it DOES have rights then abortion automatically becomes very, very wrong."
I have determined that a fetus is a child...should have all the rights any child has...and feel it's not up for debate...a "non issue" so to speak.
You say, in fact INSIST, it IS up for debate. But LOGICALLY, if you insist it's "up for debate"...that means it hasn't been definitively determined (or it wouldn't be debatable)...and furthermore, LOGICALLY, the debate could possibly conclude with a determination that differs from your side of the issue.
So, by you proclaiming "it's debatable" is to LOGICALLY conclude it COULD BE a "person" and thus have "rights".
You can't say, "It's debatable"...and logically accept hundreds of millions of possible innocent children being killed.
Here's the REAL DEAL---It ALWAYS has to be "Not debatable"!
It's either: Not debatable that it IS a person, and abortion is wrong...or...Not debatable that it ISN'T a person, and abortion is not wrong.
If it's debatable...you CANNOT ethically abort.
The reason I brought up those other issues at all...like past prevalence of attempted abortion, burden on the mother, etc...was because these are very common arguments to support allowing women to get abortions. Of course...I don't agree with them.
I find it polite in discussions such as this to reply to what the person you are talking to is actually saying.... not bring up what people who are not even present say and reply to that instead. Neither of us have made or agree with the arguments you are talking about, so bringing them up here is just a waste of space and a distraction.
That is just me though, take what you find useful from it and discard the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Is what's growing inside the woman a "child/person" or is it just "cells/matter"? Is it "not a person" up to some point, where after that point it "becomes" a person? When does the "life" of a person begin?
A very hard question to answer. We do not know exactly when “life” and “humanity” establishes itself in the foetus. This makes this subject a very divisive one for that reason and when I say it is "up for debate" I mean that very grey area. However just because there ARE grey areas does not mean we can not find workable, sound AND safe black and white interim solutions.
I understand your analogy to a wrecking ball, even though I made bits of it. You are saying that if there is cause for concern that there might be something human there then we should not abort. In fact although I showed why your analogy was bad… I agree with it entirely. JUST as soon as there is such a concern I am ALSO against abortion until we know more.
Surprised? I think you might be, but I do agree with your basic point there. As soon as we stop being sure, we should play safe.
Where we differ is at the point WHEN we think such concerns apply. You say at the moment of conception (despite the inconsistency and self contradiction of your own position when you say you are not against the “Pill”) but you have provided no basis AT ALL for that point... except to try and slip in an entirely undefined use of the word "human" and hope it sticks.
I say the point when such concern applies is the point when we can no longer be sure what the level of consciousness of the foetus might be, or what the subjective experience of the child might be.
However EVERYTHING we know about consciousness and the “person” inextricably links it to certain type of brain activity. I repeat my Radio Analogy. The point when I am ok with abortion is not just the point where such brain activity is not yet present…. the biological facilities that GENERATE that activity are not even present.
So as I said with radio… I am not simply saying that brain activity makes us unsure about whether there is a person here (the radio waves) I am saying the things needed to MAKE brain activity are not even built yet (the radio broadcast towers)… and therefore to even begin to worry that there is a consciouness, or a person, or a subjective experience there at all is folly…. Your house facing the wrecking ball is a completely empty house.
As soon as those broadcast towers are built and powering up however… there is indeed cause for concern. At that point we are unsure. We simply have NO IDEA what the subjective experience, if any, is of a developing fetus at this point.
But such things do not even START to form in the foetus until after 20 weeks. So any pretence at calling the foetus human at that point is, to me, baseless in every single way except the simply fact it contains human DNA. That is the only thing "Human" about it until then and I am afraid merely containing Human DNA is not a basis for assigning rights. If it was you would have to assign rights to cancer cells and nose dirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Is what's growing inside the woman a "child/person" or is it just "cells/matter"? Is it "not a person" up to some point, where after that point it "becomes" a person? When does the "life" of a person begin?
So to quote this line again and answer it, I do not know when it "begins" but I do not need to know when it "begins" to be able to establish a point in time when it 100% certainly is not there. That alone is enough to base my position on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
you feel YOUR determination, and the half of the population that thinks like you, is all that matters...and the contrary determination held by the other half of the population, doesn't even count to be considered.
False. Entirely False. That is now what I "feel" at all. What I "feel" is that my position which I am willing to adumbrate, argue and defend has a basis in facts and argument that I am able to present. I feel the position of those who simply throw out the word "human" and think that is enough to end the conversation have NO points to make and have not made any argument and defense of their position.
You, with the quote above, would happily attempt to paint me as simply being arrogant enough to think my position is right for no reason and dismissive enough to ignore everyone elses out of hand. False false false. I can adumbrate, argue and defend my position. I have not found you or anyone else on the anti-choice side doing the same. All I find is people like you playing with linguistics like "human" or people with pictures of abortions saying "Look at the pictures, look at the pictures". None of you have yet made a point that I am aware of.
In short: I can not dismiss what is not even there in the first place. Not possible to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I have determined that a fetus is a child
No you have not. You have DECLARED that it is a child. Declaring something and determining something are two massively different things. You have simply just declared it, but declaring things does not magically make them so.
What you keep doing in fact is declaring things to be "human" or "child" or whatever, but you run away from every... single.... attempt.... to pin you down to actually define 1) exactly what you mean in this context when you use those words and 2) exactly how that definition applies to both the object we are talking about, and an object that qualifies for the allocation of "rights".
Until you can do THAT, you have no point here alas.
As a woman, I should have the right to decide whether of not I want to carry a pregnancy and give birth. A mistake does not trump a woman's basic rights.
Being forced to carry a pregnancy should not be used as a punishment for making a mistake.....and that is how a lot of pro-lifers think of it too. "You did the "dirty deed", now you have to pay the price".
A woman should not be held hostage by a tiny organism that cannot think or feel.
The woman and what she wants is all that matters when is comes to abortion. What her neighbor thinks about it does not matter.
Like many things in life, abortion is a CHOICE, if it troubles you and you do not believe in it, you don't have to have one......and that is as far as your opinion should go. You have no right to make the abortion decision for someone else. Period.
Abortion is a PERSONAL CHOICE.......people, please just MYOB.
The pro-lifers should not take the "you have to pay the price" attitude. The woman is the only one who matters, Even if the man IS present? If you abort the baby, you are killing a 2yo and a 42yo, and whatever other age that person would have attained. To me, killing an unborn baby is the same as killing it after it is born.
Saying I don't have to kill my baby if I don't believe in doing it is said as calmly as saying if I don't want to buy a pizza, I don't have to. If you did not have a child and one was left in your care and it was a really bad time in your life as far as a child being disruptive and you couldn't get anyone else to take the child (including the state), could you kill it then. After all, if the clild is only a month or several months old, its not really thinking or feeling important things yet, right?
Reiterating an earlier post, even after birth, the baby is not a child and is wholly dependent on parental care. Pretty similar to the marsupials that house the young in a pouch for most of their incubation. The kangaroo will return to the pouch even after it is now what we would term a child, able to wipe its bum and feed itself.
I am happy with life beginning at birth but that life is anyway still very limited and dependent on its parents. Abandoning a newborn for most animals leads to death. Think of the turtles that lay eggs on the beach, very few of them make it to adulthood.
A human is no longer a baby when it can walk, possibly talk and take care of itself albeit small things. Then it becomes a child. It remains a child until it goes through puberty which of itself is very variable and at the turn of puberty, having the mechanisms to procreate does not make it suitable for them to just start off doing it bu the natural urges start to kick in. The child becomes a full adult when it can care for itself even if that caring is sponging off its parents for subsistence, it knows where to buy food and possibly knows how to make a meal. In times of yore, this would be when the male knew how to hunt and the female how to work the corpse of the animal into a meal.
I think we can all agree that a baby is a child at age ±3 and this is when its starts to be a person. Because a live birth requires registration of birth and because currently, there are no laws anywhere that I am aware of that gives legal rights to the unborn, one is forced to depart from that when trying to impose your sense of morality on others.
Backtracking to pre birth, at no stage are we sure that this fetus has any cognitive recall because it cannot tell us.
Oh, and being party to bombing real people that are actually alive and human, one has to ask where one's definitions of life are gleaned from.
Folk that want abortions can wrestle alone with their conscience; they do not need your help.
Reiterating an earlier post, even after birth, the baby is not a child and is wholly dependent on parental care. Pretty similar to the marsupials that house the young in a pouch for most of their incubation. The kangaroo will return to the pouch even after it is now what we would term a child, able to wipe its bum and feed itself.
I am happy with life beginning at birth but that life is anyway still very limited and dependent on its parents. Abandoning a newborn for most animals leads to death. Think of the turtles that lay eggs on the beach, very few of them make it to adulthood.
A human is no longer a baby when it can walk, possibly talk and take care of itself albeit small things. Then it becomes a child. It remains a child until it goes through puberty which of itself is very variable and at the turn of puberty, having the mechanisms to procreate does not make it suitable for them to just start off doing it bu the natural urges start to kick in. The child becomes a full adult when it can care for itself even if that caring is sponging off its parents for subsistence, it knows where to buy food and possibly knows how to make a meal. In times of yore, this would be when the male knew how to hunt and the female how to work the corpse of the animal into a meal.
I think we can all agree that a baby is a child at age ±3 and this is when its starts to be a person. Because a live birth requires registration of birth and because currently, there are no laws anywhere that I am aware of that gives legal rights to the unborn, one is forced to depart from that when trying to impose your sense of morality on others.
Backtracking to pre birth, at no stage are we sure that this fetus has any cognitive recall because it cannot tell us.
Oh, and being party to bombing real people that are actually alive and human, one has to ask where one's definitions of life are gleaned from.
Folk that want abortions can wrestle alone with their conscience; they do not need your help.
Thanks for the inhuman Animal Planet answer. You remind me of someone who would smash acorns with a hammer while aspousing his love and respect for oak trees.
I find it polite in discussions such as this to reply to what the person you are talking to is actually saying.... not bring up what people who are not even present say and reply to that instead. Neither of us have made or agree with the arguments you are talking about, so bringing them up here is just a waste of space and a distraction.
That is just me though, take what you find useful from it and discard the rest.
A very hard question to answer. We do not know exactly when “life” and “humanity” establishes itself in the foetus. This makes this subject a very divisive one for that reason and when I say it is "up for debate" I mean that very grey area. However just because there ARE grey areas does not mean we can not find workable, sound AND safe black and white interim solutions.
I understand your analogy to a wrecking ball, even though I made bits of it. You are saying that if there is cause for concern that there might be something human there then we should not abort. In fact although I showed why your analogy was bad… I agree with it entirely. JUST as soon as there is such a concern I am ALSO against abortion until we know more.
Surprised? I think you might be, but I do agree with your basic point there. As soon as we stop being sure, we should play safe.
Where we differ is at the point WHEN we think such concerns apply. You say at the moment of conception (despite the inconsistency and self contradiction of your own position when you say you are not against the “Pill”) but you have provided no basis AT ALL for that point... except to try and slip in an entirely undefined use of the word "human" and hope it sticks.
I say the point when such concern applies is the point when we can no longer be sure what the level of consciousness of the foetus might be, or what the subjective experience of the child might be.
However EVERYTHING we know about consciousness and the “person” inextricably links it to certain type of brain activity. I repeat my Radio Analogy. The point when I am ok with abortion is not just the point where such brain activity is not yet present…. the biological facilities that GENERATE that activity are not even present.
So as I said with radio… I am not simply saying that brain activity makes us unsure about whether there is a person here (the radio waves) I am saying the things needed to MAKE brain activity are not even built yet (the radio broadcast towers)… and therefore to even begin to worry that there is a consciouness, or a person, or a subjective experience there at all is folly…. Your house facing the wrecking ball is a completely empty house.
As soon as those broadcast towers are built and powering up however… there is indeed cause for concern. At that point we are unsure. We simply have NO IDEA what the subjective experience, if any, is of a developing fetus at this point.
But such things do not even START to form in the foetus until after 20 weeks. So any pretence at calling the foetus human at that point is, to me, baseless in every single way except the simply fact it contains human DNA. That is the only thing "Human" about it until then and I am afraid merely containing Human DNA is not a basis for assigning rights. If it was you would have to assign rights to cancer cells and nose dirt.
So to quote this line again and answer it, I do not know when it "begins" but I do not need to know when it "begins" to be able to establish a point in time when it 100% certainly is not there. That alone is enough to base my position on.
False. Entirely False. That is now what I "feel" at all. What I "feel" is that my position which I am willing to adumbrate, argue and defend has a basis in facts and argument that I am able to present. I feel the position of those who simply throw out the word "human" and think that is enough to end the conversation have NO points to make and have not made any argument and defense of their position.
You, with the quote above, would happily attempt to paint me as simply being arrogant enough to think my position is right for no reason and dismissive enough to ignore everyone elses out of hand. False false false. I can adumbrate, argue and defend my position. I have not found you or anyone else on the anti-choice side doing the same. All I find is people like you playing with linguistics like "human" or people with pictures of abortions saying "Look at the pictures, look at the pictures". None of you have yet made a point that I am aware of.
In short: I can not dismiss what is not even there in the first place. Not possible to do.
No you have not. You have DECLARED that it is a child. Declaring something and determining something are two massively different things. You have simply just declared it, but declaring things does not magically make them so.
What you keep doing in fact is declaring things to be "human" or "child" or whatever, but you run away from every... single.... attempt.... to pin you down to actually define 1) exactly what you mean in this context when you use those words and 2) exactly how that definition applies to both the object we are talking about, and an object that qualifies for the allocation of "rights".
Until you can do THAT, you have no point here alas.
Sorry about the lack of politeness Nozz...I am the first to admit I'm not the classiest guy out there.
I understand your points of contention Nozz...and give them their due. And I'm hip to the basis of your position.
I never said you dismissed the position of the "other side" out of hand and with no reason...but that you HAVE dismissed it, as evidenced by your support of abortion rights...even though you know, in fact, as many as not have "concern that there might be something human there then we should not abort".
I will say...that though I still obviously disagree...you have a basis that is void of all the emotional rants I typically see/hear...and that is refreshing.
I can explain my basis for the "human" proclamation very simply.
I use Human as a reference to species.
The only offspring (were talking offspring, not cancer cells and snot) any species brings forth is it's own (I've noted this)...thus the offspring of a human can't be anything but.
The fetus is the developing offspring. It can't be anything but human in species. THAT is why I say it's human.
Also, the fetus is commonly referred to as a "baby"...if you don't believe me...ask any pregnant woman who just had an ultrasound what those "pictures" are of. Thus my references to baby/child. It's "normal usage" in the "real world" to refer to it as that. I hope you are hip to that.
Babies/children have whatever rights they have, depending on where you are. THOSE are the "rights"...legal rights as per location/juristiction...that I mean when I say "rights".
Hope I cleared all that up...I thought it was self explanitory.
Also, as part of the basis for my determination that I have declared I've made (hope that clears THAT up too) is that a fetus at any point, is THE SAME fetus as it is at any other point...just more or less developed. To use the level of development as determining whether it should be allowed to be done away with fails in my determination. A determination I have declared I've made on that basis.
I say the beginning is conception...because that IS logically the very beginning of a pregnancy...I believe this is not debatable...so do many others, "experts" included.
You say you "do not know when it "begins" but I do not need to know when it "begins" to be able to establish a point in time when it 100% certainly is not there.". People would take "100% certainty" as just another way of saying "non debateable". Many others agree with you.
So who's right? I say I am...you say you are. The population splits about 50/50. Yet you are still willing to support abortion rights on the basis you have determined "with 100% certainty" it's "nothing" before 20 weeks.
And on THAT basis you NECESSARILY must dismiss "the other side" to accept the elimination of that "entity" by abortion...and still hold true to your aforementioned position.
I say the beginning is conception...because that IS logically the very beginning of a pregnancy...I believe this is not debatable...so do many others, "experts" included.
It is the beginning of a pregnancy, I think no one will dispute that. That however does not automatically translate to the beginning of life.
The challenge is to find one culture that requires pregnant women to register their fetus/pregnancy - none?
Hence life does not begin within the womb per se. One may even argue that the fetus is "alive" in that it moves, sucks its thumb and many other emotional examples, however should the future mother's placenta become detached for whatever reason, the fetus dies/ceases to be "alive". But now we are talking many months into term. Should this happen, then possibly the body will flush it out or she may need an abortion. I think we would term this as a natural miscarriage.
This procedure would be likely called a Dilation and curettage and a "nice way" to describe an abortion for those with access to medical and private hospitals and expensive gynecologists. This was the way they did it here in the past when abortion was still frowned upon.
If you read the link, the procedure sounds awfully similar to abortion procedures.
Legally, life can only be as a result of a live birth. Still born births need not be registered as a birth and no death certificate is issued either. You may say these are exception to the rules but they are not, they are the realities that exist in most if not all cultures.
A movement in the U.S. has changed the way that stillbirths are documented through vital records. Previously, only the deaths were reported. However 27 states have enacted legislation that offers some variation of a birth certificate as an option for parents who choose to pay for oneMAB Legislative Page
It seems only the death is reported and only a variation of a BC is available not the real deal BC of a live birth.
Advocating against abortion denies the less privileged to the same health care benefits of the privileged.
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.
