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.
[quote=Ivorytickler;27494614]Yup. Before conception, you have a sperm and an egg. After conception you have a growing zygote. It's the only event where you have something different after the event than before.
Some like to say that birth is the event but what is the difference between a baby moments after birth and a baby moments before birth?[/quotE
Developed brains that keep the whole system working and growing into a functioning human system. Before that, they are simply a collection of cells.
along with the supreme court and majority of americans who think abortion should remain legal
talk about humanity? do you think women should be forced to give birth?
Nobody but nature is forcing them. Once you do what creates the living human being living and growing inside you, HUMANITY DICTATES that you nurture it, NOT murder it.
Of course, if you have no sense of HUMANITY (as you seem not to have) you can hide behind all sorts of false constructs to justity INFANTICIDE.
A human being is a human being regardless of its "mailing address".
To be honest, you attitude, as expressed in your posts, disgusts me to the core. Life (except your own) means NOTHING to you, and that is VILE.
Sorry that makes no sense. Pregnancy is risky from start to finish. So is life. A woman can conceive and the pregnancy might fail in the first month. I could die in a tragic car accident or in some other way sometime in the next month. Intentionally terminating the pregnancy because "it might fail" is just as ridiculous as making it legal to shoot me or someone else in the head "because there is a chance they might have died anyway."
Not what I was suggesting at all. The decision to terminate and unplanned pregnancy is a whole host of reasons. Failure of BC methods being one of them but a cite strawman nonetheless.
Quote:
Another ridiculous and meaningless point. I have no idea what day I was conceived on. Neither do the vast majority of human beings on this planet.
That is a pretty dumb assertion. The approximate time is easily calculated to within 2-3 days. This is how the docs predict a delivery date and our doc was spot on except for my son who arrived early.
This is anyway irrelevant to the point I was making, no country requires the registration of a pregnancy. because as you have agreed, there is so much that can go wrong.
Quote:
There's a very good reason for that: Most likely, mommy was having sex pretty regularly, especially if she was actually trying to conceive. Outside of invitro and artificial insemination, conception dates are mostly just educated guesses. Trying to use that fact to your advantage seriously undermines your entire argument. If you are willing to use "conception dates aren't recorded" then clearly you will have no qualms about using every underhanded fact and figure in the book, just as long as it supports your opinion.
I do not use anything but facts.
Quote:
Not every anti-abortion opinion is the same and I think you know it. We've gone the rounds before and you know I can easily argue the anti-abortion from a purely non-religious point of view. You don't have to be blind to science. Science is on the pro-life side in the vast majority of cases.
Only after ~20 weeks, look up the laws internationally and see that this is the median cut off for elective abortions. Even the pro choice folk do recognise that at 20 weeks (5 lunar months) there was enough time to abort. Plus this is more or less the time there is movement aka the quickening.
Quote:
There are grey area cases where abortion should be allowed: If the mother's life is in danger is obvious. In almost ever such instance, both will die and failing to save one of those lives is just asinine. A fetus that is already dead is just as obvious. Rape and incest are slightly less obvious, but I think women pregnant by such atrocities should have the option for an abortion. These cases all add up to 3% of all abortions performed in the USA annually. It is the remaining 97% that I take issue with.
Fair enough, make your exception but that still does not make your case. Most probirthers use BC methods and the majority do have abortificant characteristics. None of the traditional BCPs or IUDs prevent conception, they do prevent adherence to a weak uterus lining so until the probirthers abandon their BC methods, have a Dugar style family, then their arguments are moot.
Quote:
And I'm all in favor of birth control in all it's variations -- proving once again that not all pro-life opinions are identical. Radically religious folks tend to be stupid when it comes to this. I cannot fathom why some folks view it as immoral, but if that's their religious conviction then it's their business. Because it is a freedom of religion/conscience issue, this matter probably can't be codified into law in either direction, but I do agree with you on this matter.
Yay common ground.
Quote:
Agreed for reasons already stated. Some people see it as a purely black and white issue, but the majority on both sides see a lot of grey areas. Just saying "Yes" or "No" doesn't make any sense.
Agreed. This was much of what I was trying to get over.
The stats show that over 90% of pregnancies end in a live birth in the US. I imagine this is par for the course internationally. Abortions are mostly carried out in the first 8-12 weeks. Whatever the personal reasons of the woman, that decision remains between her and her partner/husband and physician. The laws as they stand are reasonable and the majority adhere to these. Some outlier cases have been observed/reported and the law applied. These outliers do not mean this is a trend.
If some unknown woman is having and abortion right now as I type, there is nothing I can do and NO, it does not affect me, my marriage nor my personal choices were I to find myself in this position.
Abortions should NOT be a political wedge issue ever.
All these objections boil down to nothing other than sl*t shaming. I am just thankful I had proper sex ed and never need to face this decision. This was at school and college and even after I married, I quizzed the doc when the Missus went on the pill long before we married, then again, I do not leave anything to chance.
Think longer and harder, and then come back - or not!! Your opinioni has been noted and dismissed as rubbish.
If when you're sitting in a chair in a house and you are physically attached to it and can only be nourished by it, what can I say?
You must have one sticky azz. You better not sit down.
I guess someone didn't learn basic biology. Menstruation is the female's body's natural way of eliminating an UNFERTILIZED egg
Bzzzt, wrong. The unfertilised ovum (Use the correct terminology, we are not chickens) exited the uterus long before the menses sets in. They do not wait around in the uterus for a chance encounter with a "romantic swimmer". The conception takes place in the fallopian tubes and NOT in the uterus. The dividing cells then make their way down and if successful, will attach to a healthy uterus wall lining. Even conception in the fallopian tubes does not guarantee an attachment. This is WHY conception IS NOT the beginning of life. If you think I am lying, look it up, it is all there in detail.
Nobody but nature is forcing them. Once you do what creates the living human being living and growing inside you, HUMANITY DICTATES that you nurture it, NOT murder it.
Of course, if you have no sense of HUMANITY (as you seem not to have) you can hide behind all sorts of false constructs to justity INFANTICIDE.
A human being is a human being regardless of its "mailing address".
To be honest, you attitude, as expressed in your posts, disgusts me to the core. Life (except your own) means NOTHING to you, and that is VILE.
so instead of answering the question you resort to insults and innuendo.
I would imagine you think like a third world man and figure a woman should be forced to give birth against her will
Umm, no, again you are ill-informed. Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision.
So? The Court is part of an equal branch of the federal government (the judicial branch - in case you need a civics refresher) - the members of which are appointed and confirmed by elected offcials.
They are not supposed to make law - but they do - and any decision that they make most certainly is my business.
so instead of answering the question you resort to insults and innuendo.
I would imagine you think like a third world man and figure a woman should be forced to give birth against her will
I speak the truth. If you find it insulting, well, search your soul for humanity, if there is any left.
If you have a child, once it reaches a certain point (brain activity, for instance), abortion beyond is MURDER absent exceptional circumstances.
Let's investigate that a little further. See if you can follow along.
A pregnant woman, i.e. a WOMAN with CHILD (not a two-headed woman, or a two-headed, four-armed, four legged woman, but a WOMAN with CHILD), is murdered. The murderer can, and often is, prosecuted under two counts of manslaughter. If somebody assaults her, and causes the CHILD to be still born, that assaulter can be prosecuted for murder.
Ergo, the law, reason, human decency and common sense (absent gross selfishness) holds that the Child is a child in utero, and not, just a hunk of the woman that may or may not be wanted.
So, if it is child, a HUMAN child, it is a HUMAN.
Got it??????
Where, absent Gross selfishness, don't you follow?
If when you're sitting in a chair in a house and you are physically attached to it and can only be nourished by it, what can I say?
You must have one sticky azz. You better not sit down.
You miss the point completely. Why am I not surprised.
I speak the truth. If you find it insulting, well, search your soul for humanity, if there is any left.
If you have a child, once it reaches a certain point (brain activity, for instance), abortion beyond is MURDER absent exceptional circumstances.
Let's investigate that a little further. See if you can follow along.
A pregnant woman, i.e. a WOMAN with CHILD (not a two-headed woman, or a two-headed, four-armed, four legged woman, but a WOMAN with CHILD), is murdered. The murderer can, and often is, prosecuted under two counts of manslaughter. If somebody assaults her, and causes the CHILD to be still born, that assaulter can be prosecuted for murder.
Ergo, the law, reason, human decency and common sense (absent gross selfishness) holds that the Child is a child in utero, and not, just a hunk of the woman that may or may not be wanted.
So, if it is child, a HUMAN child, it is a HUMAN.
Got it??????
Where, absent Gross selfishness, don't you follow?
Another who just doesn't get "choice".
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.
