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.
Of course I am, because YOU brought them up. You started talking about how a cell at the moment of conception is "human". A cell at the moment of conception IS a zygote. So of course I am "still going on about" it given it is what we are talking about. Aside from that I will disregard the rest of this paragraph from you as quite simply you do not get to dictate to me what I can or can not post on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
it's ALWAYS human!!
Then once again I have to ask the question you are so determined to hide from. What is the definition of "human" you are basing this on? Simply that is contains human DNA? Or something else?
If you say that it is just because it contains human DNA, then tell me why it deserves any more special treatment than any other cell containing human DNA.
If it is something MORE than this that you mean with your definition, then why the constant need to cop out of adumbrating what your definition is?
What abortion debates essentially come down to is whether the zygote has "rights". Does it have a "right to life". Is it meaninful to assign it "human rights".
Unless you are willing to adumbrate what you mean... in such a conversation.... by words like "human" and "life" and "rights" then you are simply copping out. Compounding that cop out my throwing out things like "It is not up for debate" just makes it worse.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-09-2011 at 08:23 AM..
Moderator cut: reminderGuys I know this is a highly debatable and emotional subject when debating..Please debate the issue and not the intelligence of each other
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.
First...a tip of the hat to all...especially Nozz. Now that I have had my attitude properly adjusted, I feel I can continue in a more productive manner. Sorry for the earlier...Obviously I am passionate about this issue and I let that get the best of me. That wasn't cool...and I'm hip to that now.
Ya know Seeker...parenthood has it's burdens no-matter-what. IMO "Degree of Burden" shouldn't be taken out on the entity that is the only "innocent bystander" in the equation.
Obviously, for all of human history...women have bore young...and mostly in what modern society would consider terrible conditions...and that's still common in many parts of the world today. Most didn't/don't abort...and put forth their best effort to care for their young.
It IS complicated if the life of the mother is at risk from a self-harm standpoint. That's tough to determine...who will "snap", and who won't.
The process of human procreation has to have it's "launch event" at some point in the process...I figure, without conception there is never going to be any new life...so that's the logical starting point for me.
OTOH...my own concept is slightly conflicted because I have no problem with the "morning after pill" as a contraceptive measure...something I must admit to be fully honest. To say IMO life begins at conception...but then accept something that would cause the fertilized egg to be expelled is a "sticky wicket" for me. If I reflect on that...your aforementioned "attachment"...that I realize is necessary for the process to have any chance to continue...would be more of a "sure" starting point.
Of course if a women (like the one supposed by the OP) is "further along"...she falls under what I find to be of the certain designation of being "with child".
I have already given my opinion on what I think of killing whatever it is one wants to call what is developing in the womb...at any point in the developmental process. IMO, once that developmental process has begun that is a separate "person entity" from anyone else...including the mother and father....and IMO, should be afforded the same "rights" we give any person.
Furthermore...since it is pretty much a full consensus that it is a "grey area" at what point the developing entity "becomes a person"...and thus the chance that if the "grey" was "black and white" we would find that it IS a "person" at a very, very early stage (like attachment)...I feel, to be fair and just, we MUST act in accordance with that possibilty...until such time it can be PROVED DEFINITIVELY whether we are killing "a person" or not.
Personally I feel it is no ones business or right to get involved in what I choose to do with my body or anything in it other than that of the father. Anything that relies on ME and my body to support it is a part of me and it is my decision to do what I feel I need to do. When it no longer needs my body that is a whole different subject.
First...a tip of the hat to all...especially Nozz. Now that I have had my attitude properly adjusted, I feel I can continue in a more productive manner. Sorry for the earlier...Obviously I am passionate about this issue and I let that get the best of me. That wasn't cool...and I'm hip to that now.
Ya know Seeker...parenthood has it's burdens no-matter-what. IMO "Degree of Burden" shouldn't be taken out on the entity that is the only "innocent bystander" in the equation.
Obviously, for all of human history...women have bore young...and mostly in what modern society would consider terrible conditions...and that's still common in many parts of the world today. Most didn't/don't abort...and put forth their best effort to care for their young.
It IS complicated if the life of the mother is at risk from a self-harm standpoint. That's tough to determine...who will "snap", and who won't.
The process of human procreation has to have it's "launch event" at some point in the process...I figure, without conception there is never going to be any new life...so that's the logical starting point for me.
OTOH...my own concept is slightly conflicted because I have no problem with the "morning after pill" as a contraceptive measure...something I must admit to be fully honest. To say IMO life begins at conception...but then accept something that would cause the fertilized egg to be expelled is a "sticky wicket" for me. If I reflect on that...your aforementioned "attachment"...that I realize is necessary for the process to have any chance to continue...would be more of a "sure" starting point.
Of course if a women (like the one supposed by the OP) is "further along"...she falls under what I find to be of the certain designation of being "with child".
I have already given my opinion on what I think of killing whatever it is one wants to call what is developing in the womb...at any point in the developmental process. IMO, once that developmental process has begun that is a separate "person entity" from anyone else...including the mother and father....and IMO, should be afforded the same "rights" we give any person.
Furthermore...since it is pretty much a full consensus that it is a "grey area" at what point the developing entity "becomes a person"...and thus the chance that if the "grey" was "black and white" we would find that it IS a "person" at a very, very early stage (like attachment)...I feel, to be fair and just, we MUST act in accordance with that possibilty...until such time it can be PROVED DEFINITIVELY whether we are killing "a person" or not.
TY for the reply. I trust you read the earlier post too. For me, life begins at birth and only then. Even from a religious standpoint, lets say 400 years ago, we did not know of the woman's minute contribution but the male contribution was copiously visible and this is referred to as "seed" in the OT. The woman's cycle was seen as her "fountain" and something "unclean" in that our righteousness are seen as filthy rags aka menstrual cloths. That more of less puts everything in perspective from the ancient's POV.
Of course we now know what causes conception and how the mechanics actually work.
The problem again with your last sentence is the idea that a "person" is aborted. Just taking my experience as a parent, my kids took a long time before becoming "persons", that of course is another debate.
Even going with your premise of further along the line, I think that these abortions are rare. From what I understand, the mother's biochemistry "changes" and the awareness of something inside her is no longer a 'threat' to her. Abortions in these late development stages would only be in protection of the mother's life for whatever reason.
The fact that there are miscarriages already refutes the idea that life begins at conception and that that fetus is a "person". The fact that we have names like zygote and fetus then baby then child are indicative of societies definition of what life is. Hell even after birth, babies are at high risk and often die if you are unlucky to be in an underdeveloped country. Furthermore, miscarriages happen in the last trimester requiring sometimes medical assistance.
What about when a fetus say at 8 months "dies" in the womb? At 8 months it was a viable/potential human being but never made it out for whatever reason.
Thus life can only be legally defined as "beginning at birth". If one wishes to redefine this as at conception, then why not simply go one step back and define it as at penetration or ovulation for that matter? Of course these are equally ridiculous.
The one area you and I may share common ground is with PBA which I find horrendous.
Teenagers and unwanted pregnancies happen. Why punish them by "forcing" them to full term? If they CHOOSE to go the distance then they have exercised their choice. The inverse should be afforded to the other who cannot face a pregnancy at that age.
Abortion is legal where I come from and the population is still growing, last year at my daughter's school in gr 12, there were six with child in their final exams. None of them elected for abortion.
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.
