Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: pro-life or pro-choice
pro-life (against abortion) 32 50.00%
pro-choice (pro-abortion) 32 50.00%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2011, 07:58 PM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,628,464 times
Reputation: 1350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
BTW, as I have said before, IF a fetus is considered a person, then the father should be required to pay child support for that person. That means paying 1/2 of the living expenses of the woman while she is pregnant, including medical expenses. The mother needs food, shelter and medical care to support the man's fetus-person.....and he should pay 1/2 of those expenses. THIS is the next logical step IF we are going to legally classify a fetus as a person.
100% AGREE!!
But forget half...IMO he should pay ALL the expenses...and help out with his time and effort as well. With a harsh prison sentence if he doesn't.
No real man would do otherwise.

 
Old 03-08-2011, 08:30 PM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,628,464 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
I was responding to your statements about when life started, and your assertion of so called facts. As such, it seems that we are both off base.

Additionally, it was you in post 51 that stated:
You were not talking about pregnancy, or if you were, your words were chosen poorly. IVF eggs have been conceived, and I was simply responding to your words.

Yes, the embryos will wind up being whatever species. Agreed. But that is not my point. My point is that embryos are not really very human at all. I used appearance as a basic reference point, but I could have used size, mental capability, emotional capability, mobility, etc, etc. My point is that an embryo is not really very human at all.
Maybe it wasn't to you...but it was clear to me what way the OP was inferring as to how the conception occured...especially with the writing of: "we're not talking the 5% due to "understandable" circumstances (rape, incest, etc.) we're talking about the 95% that use abortion as a means of "birth control" (too young, having a child will disrupt education or job, has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy, etc.)"

Something about that tells me he wasn't considering IVF.
You may have taken that another way...but as I said...I believe I'm right, and you're wrong, on that. You could ask the OP to be sure...but I'm already sure. Then again...it wouldn't be the first time I was "sure", but wrong...and if I am wrong...it ain't gonna be the last time.

My posts in this thread were within the parameters of my interpretation of where I thought the OP was coming from.

 
Old 03-09-2011, 02:30 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,355,453 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
My proclamation "not up for debate" was not put forth based on "my opinion"...it is what's based on current KNOWN science.
Again wholly false. There are many things „known“ in science but none of them tell us how to use language. What we mean by “human” in science, AND what we mean by “human” in philosophy, and what we mean by “human” in law, rights and morality, is not a fixed entity.

So AGAIN I reiterate it is VERY much “up for debate” if something is Human in this conversation because it is VERY much “up for debate” what we are talking about when we even say “human” in the first place.

I recognise why people like yourself would like to obfuscate and bypass such a debate though. It rarely fits into your agenda on the issue of abortion to have that conversation, so it is best to cop out of it entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
"Life" begins at conception, and it IS "human" life.
You suffer from exactly the same problem of definitions here. What are you defining as “Human Life” or even as “life” here? What “begins” exactly.

The parents were alive, the sperm and egg are alive, the zygote is alive, the fetus is alive. Exactly where does “life” start? In fact what do you even mean be “conception” given that this is not one step, but a huge number of steps. There is no “moment” of conception but a long series of events. Exactly which one of those events is when “life” begins.

See the issue? You are throwing out random words that sound good to you, but doing your darndest to ensure your meanings when using those words in this context is as cloudy as possible. You are essentially saying nothing at all, then trying to rip a conclusion out of that mess.

In fact depending on how you define “life” one could just as validly claim that life ENDS at conception. After all before conception there was one living sperm and one living egg. After conception there is one living zygote. 2 lives first, 1 life second. Clearly a “life” ended.

See how important terminology is here? Yet you are so keen to say none of this is “up for debate”. It not only very much IS “up for debate” but it is paramount that such debates be had…. And not cowardly avoided with petty obfuscations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
The fertilized egg isn't a DRAWING of a person
Alas you could not be more wrong. A fertilized egg is nothing more than a cell with DNA in it. That DNA is the blueprint for how to build a human. Nothing more. Nothing less. We know of nothing else in there. No magical "soul". No vague and undefined meaningless term of "personhood". It is simply a blue print and nothing more. To try and make it more is an attempt with no basis that you have adumbrated. You simply throw out the word "person" without defining what you mean by that... but I do not see any definition of "person" from you that includes a single cell with a block of DNA in it. Your definition of "person" would need to be so dilute as to be essentially meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Typically, the zygote in a women would be properly analogized to the completed foundation, the completed framework, all the rest of the materials
That would be an awful analogy because that is not even remotely what the Zygote is. It does not have the "framework" or the "materials" to build a human. It is simply the blueprint on how to build the frame work from other materials.

The Zygote simply is a set of instructions. The mother than provides the materials, the Zygote does not have them, and that DNA controls what is done with them. So no, comparing it to something with all the materially is rubbish. It is better analogiesed, as I already did, to a blue print because that is exactly what it is. In fact "analogy" is not even correct. It is a direct 1:1 comparison. The zygote IS a blueprint and nothing more. It has none of the framework and materials that you are engaging in comic fantasy about. There is absolutely and entirely NO DIFFERENTIATION AT ALL within the cell. No heart, bone, lungs, organs, brain. Nothing. It is just one cell, with one blue print inside it written in DNA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Is that "handling" the debate enough for ya?
Well comically you have just made my original point for me. There is two conversations going on here between us. One is a debate, the other however was my original point that the subject IS UP FOR DEBATE, which you claimed it was not.

So thanks for "handling" the debate a little more... you made the point I originally made for me. Clearly it all very much IS up for debate, given that is exactly what you just acknowledged you are doing. Enjoy the foot in the mouth.

Speaking of putting your foot in your mouth. Read what you wrote to another user:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
and human embryos in humans ALWAYS end up humans if they come to term.
Now I am aware of nothing in this universe ever that is both X and ends up being X at the same time. You either are X or you are becoming X. You can not be something and be becoming that something at the same time.

Yet here you say the embryo will “end up human”. The inference therefore being, exactly as I keep telling you, that it is NOT HUMAN NOW. Thanks for making my point for me!

Unless you want to engage in the fantasy that something can be Human and be becoming human at the same time, but as I said you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either one or the other.

See how important it is to define your terms? See why I keep pointing out that declaring it “not up for debate” is entirely fallacious?
 
Old 03-09-2011, 02:41 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,355,453 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolinagirl05 View Post
Do you know the babies sex is known at 4 months?
False, the sex of the baby is knowable from DAY 1. The sex of the baby is determined the very moment one of the sperm finally reaches the egg. The sex of the baby therefore is known whenever anyone bothers to check it... which for most people is not until later in the development because it just gets easier as time goes on, with less expensive techniques etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolinagirl05 View Post
The real problem is there is NO education in young people, no REAL responsiblity from teens or young adults! Teens and young adults just want to "party" and have fun.
Here we agree, even though I am pro-choice and you are not. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion like the OP suggested. Most pro-choice people want people to HAVE the choice, but would prefer they did not have to do so.

It is the same as saying I am pro-heart by pass. I want people to have access to this wonderful and important medical procedure that saves many lives. That does not mean I want to see more of that procedure being required. I want to educate people on healthy eating and healthy life style so that Heart bypass is never needed.

It is the same with abortion. Most people who are pro-choice want people to have access to the procedure, but we also want to do everything in our power to make sure it is never required.... including better sexual education of children, improved quality of contraception, and a change in the Zeitgeist on how young people, and many older people, treat and view sex.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:23 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,199,999 times
Reputation: 1798
In support of Nozz and aimed at Goldenrule, life cannot begin at conception as this as I understand it, it happens usually in the fallopian tube as the ovum makes its 3 day journey down. This sometimes results in ectopic pregnancies which do require an abortion. If the fertilized ovum makes the journey down and fails to adhere to the uterus, the zygote is discharged.

This is all off the top of my head so some details may be missing.

Thus, if we have a failure to adhere to the uterus wall, how then can one declare life begins at conception? Should you choose to retract and say then it happens at the time the zygote attaches to the uterus wall, then it becomes a flexible standard.

Source
The female

Each month the woman produces an egg from one of her two ovaries, which lie one on each side of the uterus (womb). The ovaries are glands which store the eggs in small sacs called follicles. Once the egg is released, fine hairs at the end of one of the fallopian tubes pick it up and waft it into the fallopian tube.
The egg then travels down the fallopian tube into the uterus. If it has been fertilised, the egg implants itself into the lining of the uterus (the endometrium). During each cycle the endometrium thickens ready to receive a fertilised egg. (If there is no fertilised egg, the endometrium breaks down and is shed from the body at menstruation, when a woman has a period.)
The male

Male semen contains several million sperm, but only one will be needed for conception, and that single sperm cell contains the father’s genetic contribution to the baby. The sperm can swim, and need to be able to do so as they have to move through the cervix, into the uterus and along the fallopian tubes. As they travel, chemical changes mature the sperm so that they become capable of fertilising an egg.
We know that period cycles can be affected by illness and an unwanted pregnancy will usually be detected at the missing of the next cycle. This is usually at 6 weeks.


Here is a link to what it looks like at 6 weeks (maybe too graphic for this forum hence only a link?). That is not a person or human, only a fetus with a potential to become a human. One could compare a fertilized chicken egg and get a very similar image.


If you stayed on a farm/small holding where the chickens were in the pen, chances are that most of the eggs you used in cooking/breakfast were fertilized and only require incubation to develop and hatch.


I think if you look at the dolphin, you will find similar images of a fetus at approx the same "age".


In closing, there are more natural abortions that happen than assisted abortions. I do agree that this should not be used as a default BC method but my intuition tells me, the most of these abortions are warranted as they were unforeseen. The choice should be left to the mother as she will have to deal with any guilt associated. It is not for us to determine or influence her decision.


I guess the excellent British uncensored sex ed I had at school here in Africa in the 70's kept me from ever having to deal with this issue directly.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:28 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,355,453 times
Reputation: 2988
Not only is the „life begins at conception“ argument badly defined, baseless and useless to us in a conversation on rights and morality, but it is also very lucky it is so. Especially from the religious “soul in the zygote at conception” idea some theists have.

There is a little known but very common occurrence in the zygote that hammers a hole right into the "at conception" argument. Imagine the cell is a "new life" for a moment.

Often the cell splits into twins. More often than you think. What has happened here? Has a new life popped up AFTER conception???? This kills the "all life is at conception" idea. Or has the life of the one become two halves? I would love to see you tell twins they are only half-alive! Or that only one of them is alive because their life began at conception but the other one came from nowhere.

If this is so common however why are there not more twins in the world?

Well because often one twin REABSORBS the other. What happened here? Did half alive twins become one? Did one murder the other? Is one life suddenly dead, or if you are religious is one life cast into eternal limbo as an un-baptised soul?

No CLEARLY this arithmetic of souls makes NO sense and nor does “life begins at conception”.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,581,800 times
Reputation: 11083
They don't come up to be anything once they're aborted.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:04 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,628,464 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
They don't come up to be anything once they're aborted.
THAT ^^ is the ULTIMATE non-debatable statement of this thread.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:36 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,199,999 times
Reputation: 1798
Just wanted to add, if pro-choice = pro abortion then I would like to say that pro-life = we want you to carry the fetus to full term then we will not even blink an eyelid whether you can provide for the child or even if you decide to dump the kid you did not want in the nearest trash can or public toilet - OR - we really do not give a hoot if you are shamed and decide to off yourself and your "baby" during the pregnancy.

These scenarios happen because of the stigma associated with abortion. If the girl off's herself, there is no harm done in the eyes of the pro-lifers, should she dump the baby she never wanted, she now faces criminal charges the least of which would be abandonment should the baby survive the abandonment.

IMO, these are the bigger issues we need to face up to.

Were I a teenage girl and got myself knocked up and was confronted with a pro-lifer, I would suggest they take me in and care for me during the unwanted pregnancy and then continue to care for me and my unwanted child post the birth. This would of course be very money related with all the check ups, birth and post natal care. I seriously doubt that any pro lifer would put their money where their mouth is when pushed to this extreme.

If she was underage, depending on circumstances, she well might withhold the name of the father who unless also underage, could be held up for statutorial rape i.e 18 YO guy with a 15 YO girl.

In the example above, both cases could be avoided with proper access to BC methods but the prevailing dogma of abstinence does not work, teens do it.
 
Old 03-09-2011, 05:38 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,581,800 times
Reputation: 11083
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
THAT ^^ is the ULTIMATE non-debatable statement of this thread.
The ultimate statement is "It's no big deal."
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top