Do you want Row V Wade overturned? (crime, education, state)
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.
A fertilized egg is not a baby. Is a seed a tree? An egg a chicken? If so why do we have different words for all of these things.
Even the dictionary understands this,
"a very young child, especially one newly or recently born".
Not a baby until it is born.
So until this fertilized egg is born it could be a transistor radio or a ham sandwich or a pumpkin according to your logic.
A fertilized egg, one that has a heart beat that can be heard as early as 6 weeks, is merely a possible oak tree until it exits the birth canal? Sorry but. Science.
Regardless of your imaginings, a zygote is a human life form, albeit the earliest stage of the human life form, but until it ceases to exist on it's own (i.e., by miscarriage) that is human life that exists and has value.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipsywicket
Which is why it is important to create OPPORTUNITY! Yes children cost a lot of money, they also contribute a lot of money to society. That's how this thing works. Back in the dark old ages, before people thought it was great to kill their unborn, they had as many children as possible so that they had labor to work their farms and feed the family and maybe have someone to care for them in their old age. That cycle was continuous until this very day. Except modern society has decided that life is too hard or expensive to take care of the children you create and would rather shove the elderly into old folks homes that cost $10K a month...
There are jobs available for anyone who wants one. No there are not the jobs available that everyone believes they deserve, but no one in this country will die of starvation in the street if they really want to work, because there are charities that will assist them to get on their feet, or back on their feet and there is living proof of that all around us.
It takes a certain dollar figure to live on your own AND support a kid WITHOUT public assistance. In my city, that number is $52k/year. Not too many jobs pay that much
Except if you define life as occurring at fertilization, which your earlier post suggests you do, than most of the "effective" forms of birth control become ILLEGAL.
Most hormonal forms of birth control, and IUDs have a secondary action of preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. If you think life begins at fertilization, then you must consider anything that prevents pregnancy after fertilization as murder.
I believe that life occurs at implantation, so yeah, in my opinion an IUD is an abortifacient. It is also a potentially dangerous method of birth control because it can puncture the uterus or fail to remove all remnants of a zygote which can result in infections that can lead to infertility. I am not informed enough with regard to the morning after pill, but if it can be ingested prior to implantation, then my personal belief is that it does not act as an abortifacient.
What most effective form of BC are you alleging I want outlawed?
I'm a conservative, reasonably pro-life, but the answer is no. Abortions in the third trimester should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in danger). That's something most can probably agree upon.
It takes a certain dollar figure to live on your own AND support a kid WITHOUT public assistance. In my city, that number is $52k/year. Not too many jobs pay that much
My niece has three children and their total income is less than $40K per year. She has raised the most delightful, respectful, fun, funny and smart kids I have ever met, including my own and I earn multiples of her income. Money has nothing to do with how kids turn out. You are projecting your judgment on what other people value. I grew up poor, until my older siblings moved out of the house and my father had opportunities to take on jobs that had greater risks and greater rewards. You have this idea in your head that unless you are middle class or above, you and your children will lead a miserable and worthless life. I don't share your pessimism.
This is easily disproven by the fact that the vast majority of those who call themselves pro-life are also pro death penalty.
Additionally, it depends upon the definition of life; which as a scientist, I can tell you even biologists don't agree on.
I agree that the belief that an innocent life has value and the life of a despicable human being does not deserve the same support is not compatible and I personally struggled with that issue myself. It was actually someone on this forum who is pro-choice that changed my mind about it and I stand against the death penalty, even though I totally understand the reason why people support it. I agree that if I believe that every life has value, then even if that life belongs to a despicable human being, then it is inconsistent to deny that even that human being should be entitled to his/her life.
Yes, but it needs to be replaced with better access to contraceptives and sex education at schools. Otherwise we will end up with a tsunami of street kids who will cause all kinds of social problems later.
So you have to make up the right out of whole cloth. There is no unalienable right to privacy in the Constitution, therefore there is no "right to privacy" and even if it did exist, how does the "right to privacy" translate into the "right to end another human life if it is inconvenient"?
This would be a nifty argument if you didn't have to "make up out of whole cloth" the definition of life occurring at fertilization.
Care to try again?
Oh and I didn't make it up, the SCOTUS did after dozens of judges in other states did the same.
Quote:
Again, interpretation by an activist court of 9 unelected individuals does not show where the Constitution states that "the right to privacy" is an unalienable right....unlike the Declaration which states clearly that the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ARE UNALIENABLE rights, God given and cannot be taken away by the government.
ROLFMAO!!
Activists? Like Warren Burger? You have got to be kidding me.
Please, show anywhere in the constitution that life begins at fertilization? Or even try to prove that a fetus meets any definition of life?
Here let me help you. These are the requirements for an organism to be considered alive. The organism must meet ALL of these requirements.
1. Composed of cells. Check! Fetuses are composed of cells, but then again so is a wooden baseball bat. So moving on.
2.Can grow. Check! But crystals can grow, so lets keep trying to check off boxes.
3.Undergo metabolism. Another check here fetuses can undergo metabolism, but again, this applies to non living things so lets keep going.
4. Maintain homeostasis. Not a check. A fetus cannot maintain homeostasis but in fact relies on another living organism to do this for it. So first fail of the life definition.
5. Reproduce. Another fail. Fetuses cannot reproduce.
6. Adapt to their environment. Not really but this is where viability starts to come into play. A case can be made that this develops sometime in the last trimester.
7. Can respond to stimuli. Again not true for fetuses until the last trimester.
So, fetus does not meet the definition for alive, until the last trimester at the earliest.
But lets pretend for a moment that it does. Lets pretend a fetus is alive from the moment of fertilization, when it is one single cell.
Would you support abortion under any circumstances? The classic example of rape and incest? Would you make a child of 11 or 12 or whatever carry a pregnancy to term if that child had been raped by a family member? If not, why not? You think the fetus is alive, why does how it came to be alive have any bearing on the rights you want to imbue it with?
Second, what about if carrying the pregnancy to term would kill the mother? Surely you would determine that the pregnancy must continue since the fetus is alive right? We don't kill people to save other people's lives so, if you assert that a fetus is alive at fertilization, than as long as the mother can be kept alive until the fetus is viable, even if it kills her, you cannot deny the fetus of what you consider its rights. So even in the event of the certainty of death, pregnancy must continue.
Most reasonable people will see that those last two scenarios are preposterous. That it is barbarous to force a woman to die because the fetus has a right to life, and that it is inhumane to force a child to continue a pregnancy they did not choose and cannot even really understand. That means it is NOT about the fetus' personhood and subsequent "rights". Because rights are rights in all situations, even when it is uncomfortable.
Really, biologist can hear and see a beating heart of a fetus and they can't define it as "life"?
They can grow organs in a petri dish now.
Just a beating heart, in a lab, no organism. Is it alive? Does it have all the right of a person? If you think so you are insane, btw.
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.
